From: Kim Barrett (kab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-09 13:25:03
At 4:24 PM +0000 8/9/07, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> > My only (mild) quibble is the decision to use a PP sequence for the
>> arguments. I might prefer that this library be forward looking and
>> assume variadic macros, with backward compatibility variants that use
>> the PP sequence technique for use by those who need to support
>> compilers that don't support variadic macros.
>How would you implement dispatching if there is only one argument? E.g.
>BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT(i) vs. BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT( (i) ).
>AFAIK, there is no equivalent to mpl::is_sequence in PP.
I wouldn't. When I said "backward compatibility variants" I meant
macros with different names, with the "good" names used by the variadic
versions. So something like BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_PPSEQ (with no preference
intended for that specific naming convention).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk