From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 17:49:08
"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)"
> 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
> > 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.
Well, I thought my mentioning of typeof_internals, as well as the fact that
this list _is_ about library construction makes it obvious that we are
discussing libraries. Outside the context of library development, I would
not recommend anybody to use Boost PP (as well as template metaprogramming,
> 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.
> Fair enough?
Yes, but what does it have to do with this discussion? Can we convince our
users to preprocess their source code with awk? Otherwise I don't
understand how the tools you mentioned can be relevant in this context.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk