Boost logo

Boost :

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 12:45:33

"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> I need one now. I dislike the macro-based Interface
>> Definition Language, however. I find it utterly ugly
>> especially because interfaces should be immediately
>> readable. IMO, the macro-based IDL is not.
>> Here's another take (prototype) at a macro less
>> implementation of the interfaces (see attached).
>> Tested on VC7.1, g++ and Comeau. The biggest advantage
>> is that the same C++ member function interface syntax
>> is retained. This makes it very easy to understand and
>> even allows documentation extraction tools like Doxygen
>> to work as usual. A disadvantage is that there is some
>> unavoidable redundancy-- a lesser price to pay, IMO.

WOW! That's very impressive!

How is the run-time and compile-time performance?

> So why a solution that clearly involves repeating things multiple times
> is less ugly than a macro-based approach, that allows to avoid
> duplication?

He is entitled to his opinion, Arkadiy. Your comments are disparaging and
disrespectful of his contribution.

Furthermore if Joel's approach pans out (I haven't studied it in depth yet)
we may be able to merge the two approaches, and build a more compile-time
efficient macro based IDL which maps to Joel's approach, thus leading to the
best of both worlds, and the ability for the end-user to choose whichever
they prefer.

Structural subtyping (implicit interface implementation) is the lynchpin of
the Heron programming language design, but as of yet has remained
unimplemented. This may make it much easier for me to finish a Heron to C++
translator, so I am particularly interested in Joel's work!

Keep up the superlative work Joel.

Christopher Diggins 

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at