[boost] Re: Re: Preprocessor Docs Comments

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-14 17:17:20

AlisdairM wrote:
> "Brock Peabody" <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote in
> news:003e01c39291$c8da5190$580a10ac_at_[hidden]:
>
>
>> A non-expert real-life user testimonial: I had never written a single
>> macro in my life (besides include guards) before I started using
>> Boost.Preprocessor and I didn't have any trouble figuring out how to
>> use it from the documentation.  In fact, I was intimidated by macros
>> until then but now I'm pretty comfortable with them.
>
> Similar here, although I was only using a small enough subset to
> arrange
> some conditional compilation macros for our diagnostic code.
>
> When I mention that I had shunned macros until boost PP made them
> approachable, the typical reaction is that Boost PP is an evil thing,
> in daring to make macros usable at all!
>
> My experience is that if you have a specific goal in mind, the
> existing doc is at least adequate, often better.

What were you trying to do, and what did you find ?

>
> If you are trying to explore the library for its own sake, you really
> need
> a roadmap.  The 'boost PP is evil' crowd are probably happier it is
> this
> way round <g>

I don't know of anyone who believes the preprocessor is evil, although I
know Mr. Stroustrup has sought to steer C++ away from its reliance on the
preprocessor. If it is worth it producing a preprocessor library which is
usable by others, it is worth it producing a decent roadmap of its use and
functionality.