Re: anti formatter

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-24 10:26:02

--- In boost_at_y..., Kostya Altukhov <kostya_at_s...> wrote:
> rogeeff wrote:
> 
> >>All macro solutions require recompilation, therefore they
> >>are not acceptable for real-world needs.
> >>Everything that requires recompilation is not acceptable.
> >>
> >Macros are used only as a helper facility for format *definition*. 
> >You can always have separate mechanism to support runtime cjange 
of 
> >the format.
> >
> It should be possible to update format definitions and add new
> format definitions without recompilation.
> 
> It is often not acceptable if translating messages to another 
language
> requires recompilation of the executable. However, translating
> messages often requires modifications in format definitions,
> such as changing parameter order.
> 
> That's why in many international applications format definitions
> are stored in separate places (eg. text files), and it is possible
> to modify these text files without updating executable.
> 
> I see no way of supporting this approach using streams
> without something like submitted formatter.

You can always implement runtime format "storage" as a dynamic 
library. And you won't need an executable recompilation.

> 
> Best wishes,
> Kostya