From: Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 20:34:20
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> So what I was trying to say was, the point at which I will veer away
>> from pp-based programming to other tools happens earlier than others'.
> Interesting. At which "point" might that be? For example, which of the
> PP based libraries in boost would you consider using external tools?
My point would be before the PP library itself. I do, however,
understand the attraction of having the compile process take care of it
all. But "however however", building boost doesn't have to obey that
scarcity. So I think it's entirely reasonable that building boost might
generate C++ using *other* tools. I bet such an approach would lead to
more maintainable and easy-to-understand code (only requiring knowledge
of general tools that should be in a boost developer's toolchest anyway)
instead of using the PP programming paradigm, of which learning I
believe is less rewarding.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk