[boost] Re: FC++ -- Formal Review Result

From: Nicolas Fleury (nidoizo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 23:50:53

Chris Smith wrote:
> Is it such a bug that TMP does not "look more like regular C++ 
> programming"?
> I submit that some visual distinction is helpful (while not endorsing 
> the current baroque stylings) for grasping when stuff is happening while 
> reading the code.

I would not mind to have another language for metacode, like a lisp-like 
language or something, as long as it looks more "designed for that" than 
what is currently done with templates.  It works, but metacode or any 
equivalent solution would be so much more powerful and accessible.  If 
we could iterate in metacode through types and member functions for 
example, imagine how more easy it could be to make complex compile-time 
assertions or make bindings to other languages like Boost.Python.  It 
could make today's TMP code looks like old (or C) code using macros to 
simulate templates before their introduction.  Maybe it could even be 
designed to make macros obsolete.  My only concern with the metacode 
effort, is that I'm not sure C++ is the best language for its own metacode.

Regards,

Nicolas