Subject: Re: [boost] The C++ Post-Processor
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-18 13:45:54
On 18 Oct 2009, at 18:14, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>> I agree with everything except Sebastians notion the preprocessor
>>> was not
>>> Turing complete, because it is (this has been shown in the past).
>>> But that's
>>> just a minor detail.
>> Are you sure? I'm sure it's not. Template instansiation certainly is,
>> but I'm sure the preprocessor isn't, due to the lack of recursion or
> See here: http://tinyurl.com/yj6crup
While that is a very impressive piece of coding, it doesn't show NP-
completeness of the preprocessor, as the code is hardwired to at most
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk