From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 17:14:29
Paul Mensonides wrote:
>>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrei
>>Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)
>>>And sometimes, I think, it's _the only_ way. If you are
>>>please take a look at typeof_internals.htm.zip in the boost
>>sandbox file vault.
>>The only way as long as you commit to not look outside C++.
> Which is the whole point from a library perspective. Relying on awk (or any
> other external tool) to write C++ isn't so bad, but relying on it to compile C++
> is unacceptable.
One does not rely on the preprocessor to compile C++. Andrei's argument
was that these tools can be used to create C++ code, not compile them.
However I would argue with Andrei ( you forgot Python among your tools
BTW ) that while these tools might be able to create C++ code, it is
currently far more difficult to use them to do that than it is to use
the C++ preprocessor, largely becaause of lack of code in these tools to
do so. Also, of course, you would need to convince the C++ standards
people that some other tool, as you mentioned, should be integrated into
the C++ compiler to replace the C++ preprocessor as a pre-compiler code
generator. Good luck !
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk