Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today (ends 2/23)

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 10:04:16

Brian McNamara wrote:

> Other than that, the only thing that makes the current version "bigger"
> than old versions is the number of functions and datatypes you find in
> headers like "prelude.hpp".  As I've already mentioned, I know these
> headers are too monolithic (if you just want one function, like "map",
> you are forced to #include about 70 other functions too), but that's
> easy to fix.

Thanks! Refactoring the monolithic whole into chunks will definitely be
a good thing.

Anyway... I'm trying to get into the code and docs whenever I could
steal some time. So, my comments may be fragmented. Pardon me.

Here's one. In the docs, you say:

(Now is a good time to mention that FC++ supports functoids of 0-3 parameters. 
The fullN, funN, and c_fun_type classes have only been defined for functions of 
up to three arguments.)

Why only three? Experience with Phoenix with Spirit shows that this
is not enough. Why hard-code the limit? I used to hate the preprocessor,
but now, I always use boost.preprocessor to generate redundant code,
hence, not having a hard coded arity limit. Is there a technical problem
not to support more?

I might be missing something significant though. But I recall that
this is also one thing I didn't like when I first reviewed FC++
a few years ago (I was also hindered by LL's limit of 10, IIRC).

Cheers,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net