From: Iain K. Hanson (ikh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 21:34:44
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:30:19PM -0400, Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Iain K. Hanson" <ikh_at_[hidden]> wrote
> > > 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.
> > With all due respect this misses the point completely. We don't need a
> > text substitution tool for C++. We need something that includes headers,
> > also pragmas, and conditional compilation, the rest IMHO is macro hackery
> > and extra lingustic.
> And template metaprogramming is just template hackery, correct?
No! No! No! now we have type saftey, namespaces, overload sets, dynamic &
static polymorphism, metafunctions, and metafunction classes rtc.etc.etc.
> I am just trying to understand whether your antipathy is limited to macros,
> or spreads to everything that was not in the original design, and discovered
It's limited to macros. The elegance and in some senses simplicity of static
meta programming has a beauty similar to a mathematical proof.
The power of C++ is that its original author did not envison all that
others might do, but allowed permissively that which need not be denied.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk