From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-01 00:08:39
"Iain K. Hanson" <ikh_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Yes, but until now boosters have kept PP to the implementation of
> not pushing it out into user code. And PP does obscifate code for those
> of us that like to look at the implementation of libraries in order to
Generating preprocessed code might help.
> I have a great deal of respect for the PP authors/mainters but it is still
> textual substitution so why not awk or python scripts.
Because the preprocessor is built in, which means no external tools is
> > Code generation will be here, like it or not. You don't like macros,
> > what's the alternative? MFC wizards? IDL?
> Yes, but I thought boost was about quality C++ libraries and showing best
> C++ practice.
And, I hope, it is. However, what is "best C++ practice"? C++ is a
multi-paradigm language, and it enabes variety of techniques. IMO this is a
strength of C++, and this is what makes it fun, as opposed to some other,
very popular, languages. I would even say this is _the_ strength of C++.
So making best of these techniques is what makes best C++ practice.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk