From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-13 08:18:14
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > Consistency, I suppose. Macro arguments are traditionally separated with
> > comma. Why introduce another "convention" on a case by case basis?
> Ah, but you only beg the question, because the way it is now, there are
> two macro arguments.
We are venturing into the pure theoretical realm, but...
The macro, as it is now, depends on the fact that the 'real' syntax and the
'workaround' syntax are similar enough in that they both have '=' between
the name and the value.
If, at some point, we encounter a compiler that needs a different
workaround, the '=' could not be used.
Purely theoretical speculation. :-)
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk