Re: [boost] [Review:Contract]

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review:Contract]
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-17 13:54:43

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM, paul Fultz <pfultz2_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> He was an
>>> enormous help in getting the preprocessing cost associated with
>>> Boost.Python under control.  In particular, it's important to make good
>>> use of the _D, _R, and _Z suffixes described in
>>> http://www.boostpro.com/mplbook/preprocessor.html#id6
>>
>>IMO, the syntax is "bad" but the compile-time overhead is the real
>>barrier for a broader use of the lib. Therefore, improving compilation
>>time (if at all possible) will be a priority right after the 1st Boost
>>release.
>>
>
> The syntax is this way because of trying to support non-compliant preprocessors.
[...]

Paul, my apologies for the confusion. I mean "the syntax of
Boost.Contract is "bad" but Boost.Contract compile-time overhead is
the real barrier...". I was speaking about Boost.Contract and not
about Boost.Preprocessor _D, etc. I can see how my reply was confusion
in that regard.

--Lorenzo