From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 21:38:33
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>>> BOOST_BEFRIEND_TEMPLATE(shared_ptr, Y, 1)
>>>>>> BOOST_BEFRIEND_TEMPLATE(weak_ptr, Y, 1)
>>>>>> T * px; // contained pointer
>>>>>> detail::shared_count pn; // reference counter
>>>>> This doesn't look any better to me than the original, sorry. ;-)
>>>> I agree with Peter. In fact, to me it looks significantly worse.
>>> Well, there's no accounting for taste. ;-) I use similar macros a
>>> lot in the Preboost Interfaces library.
>> This has nothing to do with taste. The original version of the code
>> can be understood immediately as it only relies on general C++
>> knowledge. The macro-based version adds a level of indirection; you
>> now need to look at the documentation or the definition of the
> Right. It would be different if the macros significantly raised the
> abstraction level, but they don't.
The reason I like the macros is that you only need one version of the code,
and -- if you find the macro names intuitive -- the version with the macros
reads like the version for conforming compilers.
It's basically the same idea as BOOST_USE_FACET.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk