Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 20:21:53
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At Sat, 5 Feb 2011 18:32:06 -0500,
> Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> Agreed. I think we discussed the syntax stuff enough.
> Well, just one thing I'd like to add: it would be a shame if your Boost library
> doesn't provide alternate macros usable by anyone who is willing to depend on
> the C99 preprocessor, that take advantage of variadics.
Sure, I agree. As I mentioned in previous emails, I am taking on the
1) Look into how variadics, empty sequences, and other C99-like
preprocessor extensions might simply the parenthesized syntax.
2) Look into how Alex-Steven's macro syntax can simplify the
At the same time, I would like to encourage people to try out the
parenthesized syntax of Boost.Local as is and tell me its pros and
cons. Thanks :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk