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

Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 10:26:01

Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Alexander Nasonov <alnsn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Lorenzo, can you use typeof (sorry, if you already use it in the
>> implementation, I've not looked at it yet) and variadic macros?
> 
> 2) No, I cannot use variadic macros because they are not part of the
> compiler certification process (even if they are actually there
> because the preprocessor is really a gcc C99 perprocessor).
> Also a general guideline in for my application domain is to stick with
> 100% standard to increase portability -- if a new platform comes along
> the only reasonable assumption is for it to have a pure C++ standard
> certified compiler (even if the current certified compiler has a C99
> preprocessor, the next certified compiler might not -- if they change
> the hardware a different base compiler than gcc could be used...).
> (That said, if the embedded platform were to change there will be
> quite a bit of low level code that will need to be re-written and
> everything will need to be throughly re-tested so portability has a
> restricted meaning in this context and I essentially hope nothing
> changes with my platform, compiler, debugger, etc ;) .)
> 
> 

Hi Lorenzo,

The fact that you can not use variadic macros at work doesn't means that
your library can not provide in addition variadic macros on compilers
supporting them. I have no idea the work that this suppose, but if the
interface could be more appealing your library will have much more people
interested in.

Have you an idea of how the interface could be simplified if variadic macros
were used? 

Best,
Vicente
-- 
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Case-study-Boost-Local-versus-Boost-Phoenix-tp3259397p3262857.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.