Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

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]>
>> wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> I do not like your syntax. I much prefer the syntax I already have, with
>> a
>>> separate macro parameter merely being the template parameters if the
>>> end-user is looking for a match, ie.
>>>
>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,BOOST_PP_NIL)
>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,(class)(int)(template<typename class>  struct))
>>
>
> This is acceptable.
>
>
>>> or for variadic macros
>>>
>>> TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl)
>>> 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.