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

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-15 16:34:52

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Thomas Witt
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 8:59 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Macros at namespace scope: trailing semicolon?
> 
> Dave Steffen wrote:
> > 
> > I would point out, first, that it probably isn't "a particular"
> > editor, or "some" editor, but probably _most_ or even _all_ editors.
> > I'm a member of the One True Church of Emacs; but I'd bet 
> that those 
> > heathens^h^h^h^h^h^h^h fine people in the First Unified 
> Church of vi, 
> > or any other even fancier IDE, will have the same problems.
> 
> There it is again, propaganda. Everybody knows there is _no_ 
> fancier IDE than vi ;-).

Well, I guess I don't belong to any Church then, because I'd rather use a simple
plain text editor than either one precisely because they are both underpowered
without significant customization by me which would require more of my time than
just formatting by hand.

> > I'd also argue that editor convenience is not an unimportant issue.
> > My code editor is what I look at all day. It's probably 
> what most of 
> > us look at all day.  Auto indentation and syntax 
> highlighting are not 
> > necessary for the preservation of life and limb, freedom, 
> justice, and 
> > the pursuit of happiness, but they _do_ go a long way to keeping me 
> > happy and sane.
> 
> AFAICS the point this discussion revolves around is not 
> whether somebody is wrong or right it's all about how we 
> value these arguments in everyday life.
> 
> While I think that on a technical basis Paul is right, I 
> value automatic code indentation much higher than all the 
> arguments in favour of not requiring the semicolon.

But I don't.  You can define another macro that that encapsulates the macro and
allows you to put the semicolon--a workaround for the editor.  I can also write
another macro, but in my case, it's a de-workaround.  I have to live with the
lack of purity that exists because a particular editor that I don't use has
trouble automatically formatting it.  To me, that's a showstopper, I'd design my
own library to solve the problem before reusing the library--even though that
might take me a significant amount of time.

> As a sidenote I kind of doubt that making there usage looking 
> syntactically diffferent from function calls will educate 
> users about the way they work. To me doing away with the 
> usual "macros are evil" 
> attitude" sounds like a lot more promising approach to me.

You can't do away with that attitude without addressing where the attitude comes
from.  This is one of those places that derives the attitude.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides