Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix

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.
>>>
>>> +10000
>
> 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.