From: Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 16:54:31
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: can you write a library that would require to
> pre-process your user's C++ text with one of these tools, and then convince
> anybody to use this library?
> If Perl is better then C++ preprocessor, then it should become C++
> preprocessor. But it needs to be built-in, otherwise these are apples
> against oranges.
I was continuing the following discussion:
Thorsten Ottosen: "Nevertheless, the preprocessor is a good way to
generate some tedious code; just look inside boost.assign."
Arkadiy Vertleyb: "And sometimes, I think, it's _the only_ way. If you
are interested, please take a look at typeof_internals.htm.zip in the
boost sandbox file vault."
Yours Truly: "The only way as long as you commit to not look outside
C++." etc. etc.
The previous context of the conversation was the preprocessor, not
library construction. So I felt that within the conversation my
perspective made sense. There are other ways to generate C++ code, and
that's what I said and substantiated.
On the other hand, I agree with your point made in another post:
"Preprocessor has an obvious advantage of availability to everybody. I,
for instance, am very reluctant in downloading/using tools. I suspect
many people are like this, too."
But then if someone continued your argument with:
"For example, you won't find on my development systems any of awk, sed,
perl and I don't know how to use any of them. However, I am a pp lib
then I might opine that that person could reshuffle their priorities.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk