From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-09 09:19:50
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote
> "Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)"
> > 1. Start from the Boost implementation of the C++ preprocessor, and
> > add sane features to it. Keep the old preprocessor features as
> > deprecated.
> That one's a possibility. I personally would not want to solve these
> problems in the preprocessor layer because I want better integration
> with the rest of the language than that approach can offer. Others
> may feel differently, of course.
A better integration is not necessarily a good thing -- it's too
restrictive. Something like FOREACH, for example (let's pay a tribute to
the subject of this discussion), would not be possible in a well-integrated
system -- the piece of code it generates is not, by itself, a valid fragment
of a C++ program. So a totally independent code generation layer does have
its advantages (at least it's more flexible).
> > 3. Start an effort to add ways of manipulating ASTs to the native
> > language so as to eliminate the need for preprocessing.
> That approach has promise. Bjarne has a project to standardize a C++
> program representation and manipulation library -- it could be
> interesting to build a metaprogramming system around that.
Well, of course, ultimately it should bring us to something like this, so
that we would not have to, for example, instantiate a function template, and
take its sizeof() just in order to figure out if one class is derived from
another. IMO, it applies to template metaprogramming even more then to PP.
I am not too optimistic about this happenning in the near future, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk