Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-12 16:57:15
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> 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
>> this email exchange...whew!]
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti<lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]**
>> 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
>> week or two ago? :) I.e., shouldn't the template signature be packaged
>> 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.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting and/or reading too much into
"> BOOST_LOCAL_PARAMS(int x, int& y) // (1) BOOST_LOCAL_PARAMS( (int x)
Regardless, I actually believe that the (1) case above is actually a
large step *backwards*. It's worse, not better, because it's trying (and
failing) to be the underlying language and introducing a bunch of gotchas
in the attempt."
and subsequent follow-ups, e.g.,
and, if so, let me know, but I read this and think (among other things),
wouldn't it be better to package the template signature up into a single
parameter? For one thing, this would simplify the use of TTI_TEMPLATE
within preprocessor structures, wouldn't it? I'm not saying we can't take
advantage of variadic macros, I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't make
TTI_TEMPLATE a variadic macro (okay, other than accepting 1 argument,
"mytpl", or 2 arguments, "mytpl" and the template signature).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk