From: Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-09 01:12:28
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Ok. As I already mentioned that I used to really hate the PP, you
> can easily change my mind. I am not particularly fond of the PP
> but the boost PP lib hides all the ugliness behind a usable interface
> and that's fine with me. Sure some ugliness cannot be hidden, like,
> the arcane all cap naming convention prefixed by BOOST_ to avoid
> name clashes, but... it's the only practical way I know. Ok, please,
> I'd like to think out of the box! What other alternatives are there?
This is, unsurprisingly, a major effort, and boost would be a crucible
of the size and expertise needed to pull it off.
The way I see things, there are three ways:
1. Start from the Boost implementation of the C++ preprocessor, and add
sane features to it. Keep the old preprocessor features as deprecated.
2. Agree on a standard text preprocessing tool (perl, awk, sed, m4...)
and write some utilities tailored for C++ tasks.
3. Start an effort to add ways of manipulating ASTs to the native
language so as to eliminate the need for preprocessing.
Given, however, the lack of traction that I sense around here, I think
this group will be flooded with arguments on why all of 1, 2, and 3 are
disadvantageous. But let's stay out of the box :o).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk