From: Johan Nilsson (johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 03:59:27
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Hi All,
> I'm working on ways to make the Boost Interfaces library easier to use.
> involves making interface definitions compile faster and making them
> easier to
> read. Unfortunately, these are somewhat conflicting goals: really
> interface definitions may compile much faster than simple ones.
> I'm working on four approaches to interface definitions; I plan to
> them all and then compare them. Right now I'm looking for feedback on
> number 4:
> 1. The current IDL, possibly slightly modified, in which an interface
> consists of a sequence of macro invocation
> 2. A modified IDL in which an interface definition consists of a single
> invocation; this increases the amount of preprocessor metaprogramming but
> decreases the amount of template metaprogramming
> 3. The pseudocode IDL, together with an IDL compiler which translates
> definitions into C++ class definitions requiring virtually no
I know you wanted feedback on #4, but please, please do not force upon us an
IDL compiler. It complicates usage too much.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk