From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-01 10:55:45
Iain K. Hanson wrote:
> If we accept a macro as a lib into boost we are sending a message to
> the C++ community that macros are o.k.
If one accepts this position, what does he do with when a truely useful
and/or necessary facility can only be implemented with a macro? By necesity
one must do one of the following:
a) Accept that macros are OK
b) conclude that the facility in question isn't really useful or necessary
I don't see any way around this.
> Not only that but we are effective extending the language.
Maybe the necessity of a macro points to a direction in which the language
needs to be extended. But pending that, we're stuck with a macro.
> And where do we stop. Why not accept awk, perl, and python scripts to
re-write our programs. I see
> little difference.
Hmmm - I see no connection here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk