From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-10 16:26:53
"Vesa Karvonen" <vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams:
>>I'm writing an appendix on the PP lib for the MPL book today. I think
>>that'll demonstrate that it's possible to provide a reasonable gentle
>>and high-level introduction without exposing too many ugly details.
> That would be great!
>>- Fundamental PP Abstractions
>> - Macros
>> - Non function
>> - Function macros
>> - Tokens
>> - Sequences of tokens not including un-parenthesized commas
> Data structures are an important topic and their representation isn't
> fundamentally PP *library* specific.
> You might want to present the information on the representation of
> data structures (and simple macros like a projection operator for
> tuples and some sequences operations) here when you discuss
> fundamental PP abstractions.
I am not even trying to cover the whole PP library in this appendix,
much less the topic of PP metaprogramming in general. I am only
covering the fundamental abstractions on which the PP operates in this
section, not the things we can build with those. The PP doesn't know
anything about data structures.
> I would also probably discuss how to implement primitives like IF and
> WHILE using preprocessor macros at this point.
No way! That's why this is an appendix.
> The purpose being to show that the preprocessor is capable of
> significant computation.
The high-level library operations do that very nicely, thank you.
> I would also emphasize that the purpose of explaining the techniques
> is not that people would roll their own versions, but simply to
> deepen their understanding of the preprocessor.
That's for *your* book ;-)
>>Well, if you really have a conforming C99 preprocessor, you could use
>>Paul M's Chaos, which I think is both easier to use and *way* more
>>efficient than the current Boost PP.
> From what I know, Chaos is essentially an extended Boost.PP (meaning
> that Chaos is essentially a combinator library), with a single
> recursion backend (enabled by stricter requirements on
> preproprecessor conformance), which makes it more
> orthogonal. However, Chaos still shares many problems with Boost.PP,
> the main issues being that code will be highly verbose and very
> intricate. The verbosity and intricacy probably do not matter that
> much when one only performs simple repetition using the canned
> library macros.
Yes, I know that Chaos is not as beautiful as Order ;-)
Paul didn't implement continuations or many of the other high-level
abstractions you have. On the other hand, it is efficient without
having to pass around recursion depths IIUC.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk