From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 15:31:07
christopher diggins wrote:
> I just wanted to put forth that I really could use an offline code
> generator for my work on the OOTL. I only want a handful of
> interfaces for the library which won't change often. The benefits for
> me are:
> a) I won't have extra boost dependencies for meta-programming
> b) have the fastest possible compile times for my library
I'm laying the foundation for this right now. Now that there are going to be
several ways to generate classes representing interfaces, I have to write a
detailed specification of interface internals so that the various mechanisms
will be compatible. For instance, you should be able to derive an interface from
two base interfaces, one of which was generated by an IDL compiler and the other
of which was generated by macros.
I think I've developed an adaquate specification; I'm in the process of
modifying the current implementatin so that it satisfies the specification.
p.s. BIL is no longer an acronym, it's an ordinary word -- just like OLE was for
a while. Or, maybe I should say it stands for "BIL Isn't Legit (yet)"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk