Re: [boost] Macros at namespace scope: trailing semicolon?

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-15 14:38:59

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andy Little

> Oops soory. However this identifies a point which I dont 
> think has been made in this discussion. A generic macro is 
> just a shapeless blob standing in for some text. Therefore I 
> dont see it is possible to make general rules such as to 
> whether a trailing semicolon is included. There is simply not 
> enough definition.
> One would have to classify the *class* of macro rigorously 
> (probably via the
> grammar) first. eg is this macro representing  a typeid, an 
> assignment-expression etc. Isnt this  really what we are 
> discussing ... fitting a macro into the grammar of the 
> language?  Identify the *class* of macro in the grammar to 
> identify whether  it is possible to use a particular macro in 
> situations where a semicolon is not required, or whether the 
> semicolon is always necessary, hence rightfully included as 
> part of the macro.

I wouldn't mind this approach.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It puts the
appropriate emphasis on a macro's syntactic effect.  But I don't think that it
will help the various problems that people have (like extra semicolons) or
editor issues.  For example, if a macro expands to a function definition, then
there shouldn't be a semicolon, which puts us squarely back in the situation we
have now.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides