From: Matthew Vogt (mattvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-01 23:31:25
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:37:18 -0700, "Jonathan Turkanis"
> I'm sympathetic to this point of view. The reason it doesn't seem so bad
> to me
> is that only a relatively small part of coding with BIL is actually
> interfaces; the code which uses the interfaces is just ordinary C++.
Yeah, but in order to write any ordinary C++ using an interface, you
must first (mentally) parse the interface. Yes, you won't write much
IDL, but it will be read many times...
> Do you have any suggestions for improving the macro syntax? For instance,
> do you
> like David Abrahams's suggested syntax better:
Maybe it will grow on me :)
> > Do you have any experimental code for defining these interfaces?
> I've started work on it, but it doesn't work yet.
I hope it comes together.
> > If not, do you forsee major issues in implementing them later?
> I'm sure it is theoretically correct, and am optimistic that it will work
> practice because it uses the same techniques as the macro-based approach.
> However I can't say for sure that it will work until I see it.
I'm glad to hear your optimism, anyway.
BTW, cool library.
-- Matthew Vogt mattvogt_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk