From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-22 13:37:35
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>:
> So I am all in favor of the new technique!
I like it too.
> There is one issue with the library that I personally would like to
> see resolved at this stage, though: names of the macros. IMO, now they
> are too short and too generic for macro names, even with the BOOST_
> prefix. I understand that longer names could cause some portability
> problems, but still I would prefer to see something less general/more
> long in place of BOOST_IF, BOOST_INC or BOOST_DEC. At least the
> library name, or some other indication of scope of these macros should
> be added, e.g. as I did it in the above example (BOOST_PREPROCESSOR_IF,
> BOOST_PREPROCESSOR_REPEAT, etc.).
All of the library, including naming, is obviously tentative at this stage.
I would personally prefer a somewhat shorter prefix like CPP, which is the
name I also had in mind for the library, but I can live with PREPROCESSOR
if that is the consensus.
- Is there need for standard set of token look up functions for:
- operators in different categories with their names
- fundamental types
I have updated the library demo.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk