Re: [boost] Interest in CPP meta programming library?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-22 14:42:44

At 02:37 PM 5/22/2001, Vesa Karvonen wrote:

 >"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>:
 >[snip]
 >> 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.

Pending killer arguments from others, I [slightly] prefer the CPP names, 
although I could certainly live with PREPROCESSOR.  But I do agree with 
Alexsey that just plain BOOST_IF, etc, is a bit too generic.

--Beman