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

Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 10:41:03

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> 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,

Hi Vicente!

>
> 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.

Agree.

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

Nope, not yet :( I can (and should) experiment with this but it'd be
nice to get some more feedback on the usability (not just the look) of
the current parenthesized syntax (so I also know of specific stuff
that should be improved based on actual experience from people that
have used the parenthesized syntax).

-- 
Lorenzo