Re: [boost] Re: Re: Formal Review: FOREACH macro

From: Iain K. Hanson (ikh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-01 19:06:55

On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 01:08:39AM -0400, Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Iain K. Hanson" <ikh_at_[hidden]> wrote
> 
> > Yes, but until now boosters have kept PP to the implementation of
> libraries
> > 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
> learn.
> 
> Generating preprocessed code might help.

Yes, I know but it does involve more that just dropping the code on the 
printer.

> 
> > 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
> required.
> 
> > > Code generation will be here, like it or not.  You don't like macros,
> but
> > > 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.
>
Yes but I don't regard the preprocessor as a normally valid part of that 
multi-paradigm. I am much more in agreement with the views expressed in D&E.

/ikh