Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 14:28:10
On 2/6/2011 8:13 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mathias Gaunard
> <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2011 22:04, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>> Sorry, C++ preprocessor only -- that was a requirement for me... (Can
>>> you imagine how much the syntax can be simplified with varidiac
>>> macros... I can!! Too bad I can't use them...).
>> Can you give me one modern C++ compiler that doesn't support variadic
> Mathias: No, I can't. Variadic macros are not certified on the
> compiler I use so *I personally* cannot use them even if they are
> there (I am really using a gcc C99 preprocessor). *I personally* can
> only use the C++ standard features, I am not sure about others... As I
> said, I will take a look to what variadic macros and Alex-Steven
> syntax can do for Boost.Local.
FWIW, we didn't use variadic macros to implement it.
To achieve this, the actual expansion of the macros
is rather weird. BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION is an object-like
macro and the parameter list is the parameter list of
the implementation function (it isn't processed by
any macros at all). BOOST_BIND closes the local
class created by BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION and starts
a new one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk