Re: [boost] Re: BOOST_FOREACH review results

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 
> news:memo.513312_at_cix.compulink.co.uk...
> > 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.

/ikh

_______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
_______________________________________________________________________