Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 08:30:20
On 2/6/2011 7:20 AM, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Kenny Riddile<kfriddile_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2011 3:39 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>>> Anyway, I'm just going to wait for C++0x lambdas.
> I came to the same conclusion 3 years ago and stopped working on
> BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION. This was a wrong decision. I'm glad that
> Lorenzo is working on the library.
>> Sorry, there is not point in me waiting for C++0x because I can only
>> use standard C++ in my application domain :((
>> I am sure in 10+ years a new embedded platform will come along with
>> C++0x... well, I am not sure but I hope so. However, for now, I am
>> "stock" with C++ (even pure C++ compliant preprocessor and template
>> metaprogramming tricks are seen suspiciously in this domain because it
>> is not clear if suppliers really test for them even if they are part
>> of the C++ standard...).
> Lorenzo, can you use typeof (sorry, if you already use it in the
> implementation, I've not looked at it yet) and variadic macros?
> BTW, how widely variadic macros are supported nowadays?
Variadic macro support is defined in Boost for a given compiler when
BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS is not defined. Gcc has had it since version
3.0, VC++ has had it since 8.0, even Borland has had it since BCB6. I
suspect Clang supports variadic macros also although I did not try to
add it to the clang config files because of lack of knowledge about clang.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk