Subject: Re: [boost] The C++ Post-Processor
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-18 08:06:40
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:49 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Christian Schladetsch
> <christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > This is a general post about C++.
> > Why is it that the pre-processor (PP) is the source of so much disdain,
> > yet it is the first resource exploited to 'fix' problems with C++?
> Have you looked at the D language, it did away with the C/C++ style
> pp, but buffed up the template capabilities to let it do just about
> anything the C/C++ PP can.
> Lisp/Scheme is also the perfect example of the language running
> itself, no PP needed.
Yes I am familiar with these excursions. However, my message was directed
entirely towards the C++ community and C++ itself. Other languages have
their own uses and excuses. Boost has Wave and I think it is under-used.
This is my point.
D is indeed interesting. But I wonder how far C++ can be taken with M4/C++
before it breaks.
> I wish C++ templates were like D templates..
I think we all wish C++ was something other than it is. Some more than
But what can be done with Boost.Wave to make a C+++?
And, is there any serious effort to make a formal and correct C++
interpreter? It can of course be done. I will argue that it has to be done
sooner than later if C++ is to remain relevant as an actively used (as
opposed to necessarily maintained) language going forward.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk