From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 21:33:54
> > Joel <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> > "Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)"
> > <SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden]> wrote
> >>... 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.
> > Interesting... Can you provide an example of how would such a tool generate
> > C++ based on the library user input... Lets just start with the simplest
> > one: the user wants to set maximum size of the mpl::vector<> to 50... Can
> > you explain how that would be achieved with an external tool?
> For example, we can have a python script that will generate header
> files for vector0 .. vector50 given some user supplied configs (with
> defaults). I remember some people doing that before boost PP became
> the norm (e.g. boost.python).
> However... see my other post.
I have a simple problem and will write a trivial cpp program to do it,
but perhaps someone has an idea of a better way to do it.
The wish is to have a compile time string that is an MPL vector of
char so that I can write a compile time parser with certain features.
A bit like the xpressive static mode with a bit of spirit thrown in...
I can't see a way of doing it nicely with the PP. This strikes me as
an example of something that makes you reach for something outside the
In this case it is just a simple substitution.
typedef mpl::vector<char, 'a',' ','s','t','r','i','n','g'> cts_a_string
Or some such...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk