From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-30 19:01:35
On 1/30/02 3:39 PM, "Karl Nelson" <kenelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Feedback welcome!
I think the normal-function-style API is great. (Although the function-call
operator variant seems gratuitous.)
I'd prefer that you use the extensions that are required for a Boost
submission (.hpp, .cpp). Also, you could use the Boost preprocessor instead
of .m4 to make the header, but I guess that doesn't matter much either way.
For ease of reading the code, I think it would be cool if the generated
header was not the main header itself, but rather something the main header
includes. This makes it more likely that the main header can have suitable
comments in it.
I was unable to compile this until I changed all the "isdigit" to
I found that passing an extra parameter to format() to led to writing off
the end of the chunks_ array in push(). Some range checking needed. I think
that it would be nicer if too-few arguments resulted in some kind of
debugging help rather than silently substituting an empty string from all
Looks like a reasonable start; not as far along as the format we just did
formal review on, but with fewer quirks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk