From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-30 18:18:47
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>I like the idea behind the Interfaces Library:
>>>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.
> I agree that the current macro-based IDL is hard to read. There have been some
> good suggestion on this about improving it, however. Have you looked at the
> template-based IDL: http://tinyurl.com/6w59y? I haven't implemented it yet, but
> it's at the top of my list.
No I have not. That interface looks very readable indeed!
I think that interface can map to the prototype I posted.
It does not satisfy one of my requirements though: to
be parsable by auto-documentation extraction tools like
Doxygen and Synopsis.
> I've also been looking for a way to redesign the protocol so that hand-written
> interfaces will be resonable intelligible, but I haven't had much luck; it looks
> like you may have solved this.
>>>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.
> It looks very promising! I'll won't have a chance to examine it in detail until
> at least tomorrow.
Feel free to take whatever you find useful :)
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk