From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 17:24:05
--- In boost_at_y..., Karl Nelson <kenelson_at_e...> wrote:
> > > > And nearly anything would be better then m4.
> > >
> > > "Nearly anything" won't necessarily accomplish what m4
> > > What would be some viable alternatives?
> > Huh? m4 is just a scripting language that does macro expansion.
> > Perl could have been used instead (and actually was considered).
> > python. Heck, even Java would work for this even though Java
> > scripting language.
> What is wrong with m4? I have in the past attempted to replicate
> what m4 does with perl and others and other languages really aren't
> as elegant as they seem. You end up constantly switching from the
> output stream to the programming language.
Other then the fact that's an obscure language with few people who
actually know it, I've also found it to be a pain to use. But the
latter could just be me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk