Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Formal review period for VMD library begins today, Aug 21, and ends Sat, Aug 30
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-27 19:42:54
On 23 Aug 2014 at 23:43, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 10:51 p.m., Niall Douglas wrote:
> > So, to give a full and proper answer, yes the WG21 papers say no to
> > macros in interfaces, but the recent trend is not in that direction
> > at all .
> To sum things up: a bit of scoping for macros, less macros as flags, but
> hardly the obsolescence of macro metaprogramming on which modules have
> no incidence at all.
I never claimed macros aren't very useful, and indeed appropriate
outside interface files. In fact I never said a jot about Modules
making macros vanish in implementation code. Modules has no relevance
to implementation code.
I did say they are supposed to be obsoleted in interface files with
Modules. As my more complex explanation shows, that still holds true
for the WG21 proposals, even though Gaby's expands macros out first.
It's rather murkier with what clang is doing.
> If anything, I'd say that the improvements presented by any of the
> several different modules proposals in flux would be gladly welcomed by
> libraries like PP and VMD.
Maybe. For what clang is doing with Modules, I can see macro
metaprogramming as a fun way to make clang take forever to do
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk