Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-12 21:52:00

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On 7/12/2011 9:32 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]**
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  On 7/12/2011 7:27 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]*
>>>> ***>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 7/12/2011 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Edward
>>>>>> Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]****>wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,******int,template<class,class>))) // (3)
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't the above a size 4 Boost.PP Array?  Or are you purposely
>>>>>> demonstrating
>>>>>> the ease with which the user would make mistakes with this syntax? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You copied it wrong from my reply. Are you purposely demonstrating the
>>>>> ease
>>>>> by which template parameters may be copied incorrectly<g>   ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry... I really don't understand what this means...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Mr. Hellrung copied the example incorrectly when he replied.
>>>
>>>
>> [At the risk of being petty...]  Ummm...no I didn't.  I actually thought
>> you
>> were joking in your initial response :: cough ::
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/**221406
>

>>
>
> In that response above I had:
>
> "TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,**int,template<class,class>))) // (3) both"
>
> In your first answer above you had:
>
> "TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,****int,template<class,class>))) // both (3)"
>
> And above you have:
>
> "TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,******int,template<class,class>))) // both
> (3)"
>
> Maybe your e-mail client is adding extra 'stars' behind your back <g>.
>

I stand corrected :(  No idea about the stars, I'm just using gmail.

>
>
>> Anyways, Eddie, don't get me wrong, most of the rest of the library (as
>> much
>> as I've been able to get through so far, anyway) looks very sharp, the
>> documentation is well done, and I think you've acknowledged that you will
>> fix the more serious problems (e.g., metafunction injection to boost::tti
>> namespace, too many macros (with the latter being fixed partially by
>> fixing
>> the former)), so really we're just trying to find something to pick on you
>> for.  It wouldn't be a very interesting review if we didn't, now would it?
>> (Please take that as light heartedly as possible.)
>>
>
> I understand.
>
> Can I get you to give an official review of TTI before the review period is
> over ?
>

I started it last night; I'll finish by week's end (hopefully).  I have a
vested interested in this library as I have my own introspection
metafunction-generating macros that I've cobbled together myself so it would
be nice if something in Boost could replace those.

- Jeff