Re: Preprocessor library updates (Re: [boost] PREPROCESSOR -> PP ?)

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-31 22:12:46

From: "Vesa Karvonen" <vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden]>
> I have now committed the change from PREPROCESSOR to PP. The old obsolete
> names are retained for now. I also wrote documentation for BOOST_PP_WHILE(),
> so it can now officially be used. I also split the unit/regression tests into
> multiple files, so that test results can now reveal more information about
> preprocessor performance and conformance.

Much better -- thanks.

> I have also continued R&D of list functionality. The following primitives are
> now implemented, but not added to CVS.
> 
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_NIL
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_CONS(H,T)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_IS_CONS(L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_IS_NIL(L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_HEAD(L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_TAIL(L)
> 
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_APPEND(L,R)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_AT(L,I)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_CAT(L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_FOLD_LEFT(F,R,L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_FOLD_RIGHT(F,L,R)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_ITER(F,P,L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_MAP(F,P,L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_REVERSE(L)
>     BOOST_PP_LIST_SIZE(L)
> 
> (The names are a mix of Lisp, Ocaml and C++.)

Such a motley collection of languages.

> The next thing on my list is to implement arithmetic operations using a list
> representation of numbers so that arithmetic performance may be improved.

So does this mean that the C preproccessor is Turing-complete?