Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-12 21:43:02

On 7/12/2011 9:32 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2011 7:27 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]**>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/12/2011 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Edward
>>>>> Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]**>wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,****int,template<class,class>))) // (3)
>>>>>> both
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the above a size 4 Boost.PP Array?  Or are you purposely
>>>>> demonstrating
>>>>> the ease with which the user would make mistakes with this syntax? :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You copied it wrong from my reply. Are you purposely demonstrating the
>>>> ease
>>>> by which template parameters may be copied incorrectly<g>   ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry... I really don't understand what this means...
>>>
>>
>> Mr. Hellrung copied the example incorrectly when he replied.
>>
>
> [At the risk of being petty...]  Ummm...no I didn't.  I actually thought you
> were joking in your initial response :: cough ::
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/221406

In that response above I had:

"TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,int,template<class,class>))) // (3) both"

In your first answer above you had:

"TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,**int,template<class,class>))) // both (3)"

And above you have:

"TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,****int,template<class,class>))) // both (3)"

Maybe your e-mail client is adding extra 'stars' behind your back <g>.

>
> Anyways, Eddie, don't get me wrong, most of the rest of the library (as much
> as I've been able to get through so far, anyway) looks very sharp, the
> documentation is well done, and I think you've acknowledged that you will
> fix the more serious problems (e.g., metafunction injection to boost::tti
> namespace, too many macros (with the latter being fixed partially by fixing
> the former)), so really we're just trying to find something to pick on you
> for.  It wouldn't be a very interesting review if we didn't, now would it?
> (Please take that as light heartedly as possible.)

I understand.

Can I get you to give an official review of TTI before the review period 
is over ?

Eddie