From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-10 12:04:04
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> It is usually okay to reuse a single generic macro name like
> BOOST_PP_DEF throughout your code because the macro is
> both defined and undefined very close to its point of use.
Yeah, this would make a lot more sense. I was just looking over the
docs the other day too, and gave up because it was taking too long
> ?? Where is BOOST_PP_EMPTY used in this example? I think I
> know what you mean, but really, you need to show it!
Yup. You did better than me. I didn't even see the
> The BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS example could benefit greatly
> from a side-by-side format in a table showing the expansion on the
> right. In fact, that would help all the examples,
YES! I could not agree with this more!!! It's hard enough getting one's
head around the PP lib without having to be an expert in it already.
> BOOST_PP_IF enables convenient generation of lists using
> This statement, without an example, is too vague to be helpful.
Yes, many more examples, please. Also, am I the only one who finds
the sparse frame-based layout to be a little counter-intuitive? Would
it be possible to make the docs look a little more Boost-like?
> Example: Use arithmetic, logical, and comparison operations
> when necessary.
> With no commentary, and no generated code, this example is really
> useless. I mean, of course you'd use arithmetic, logical, and
> comparison operations "when neccessary".
I didn't get that either. It's a shame, because there's a lot of code that
would benefit from the PP lib that almost certainly isn't because of the
difficult learning curve. Good documentation would go a long way
towards making it more usable.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk