Re: [boost] PREPROCESSOR data structures

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-18 09:03:24

I wouldn't oppose a transition to BOOST_PP...
we could always hold onto the old names for a while for
backwards-compatibility.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] PREPROCESSOR data structures

> On Tuesday 18 December 2001 06:47 am, you wrote:
> > I think that a big part of the readability problem is caused by the 18
> > character prefix:
> >
> >   BOOST_PREPROCESSOR
> >   123456789012345678
>
> I often wondered why we ended up choosing such a lengthy prefix, when
> something shorter (i.e., BOOST_PP) would suffice. In fact, I think a
shorter
> prefix would be more readable in this case, because preprocessor
> metaprogramming is very whitespace-sensitive, sometimes causing very long
> lines to be required; the long prefix makes these lines REALLY long, and
> hides the intent.
>
> Doug
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Send unsubscribe requests to:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>