From: Iain K. Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 10:24:01
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 09:43 -0400, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Dave Harris" <brangdon_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1_at_[hidden]>
> > gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden] (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
> >> The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle:
> >> "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe
> >> interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice
> >> supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool
> >> could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
> > For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that
> > principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary.
> > I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple
> > non-problem.
> If I am not mistaken you believe that using macro is adding complexity,
> while many others reported this facility actually simplify their life. So I
> still consider you disagree in principle: "macros adding complexity;
> nonmacro alternative will always be simpler". While this is discussible
> position, I did not see you prove you point enough to reject a submission.
iirc Dave's argument was that BOOST_FOREACH did not deliver enough "bang
per buck" i.e. it was to complex for little benefit. Something that at
the time I also agreed with but did not state.
I was the only one arguing against macros on principle.
This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk