Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-12 13:23:01
On 7/11/2011 11:55 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> [I have not looked in detail at the TTI library and only *just* caught up on
> this email exchange...whew!]
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti<lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>>> I do not like your syntax. I much prefer the syntax I already have, with
>>> separate macro parameter merely being the template parameters if the
>>> end-user is looking for a match, ie.
>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,(class)(int)(template<typename class> struct))
> This is acceptable.
>>> or for variadic macros
>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,class,int,template<typename class> struct)
> Didn't Paul Mensonides (sp? sorry Paul!) rail against such constructs just a
> week or two ago? :) I.e., shouldn't the template signature be packaged into
> a single parameter?
I do not know what you are referring to regarding Paul Mensonides'
opinion but a large part of variadic macros value, IMO, is that they
provide a better syntax for the end-user while the pp-lib data types
provide much richer functionality internally. So I see no reason why the
variadic macro syntax should not be provided for end-user use.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk