Subject: Re: [boost] MSVC warnings for BOOST_PP_IS_EMPTY in Boost.Phoenix
From: Damien Buhl (damien.buhl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-17 05:23:43
On 11/03/2015 08:49, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Damien Buhl <damien.buhl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Perhaps, 'auto' would be shorter?
>>> (auto, name)
>>> (auto, age)
>>> It also looks kind of similar to C++14 lambdas.
>> That looks nice, and it may be great, but I'm a bit concerned in giving
>> a slight different meaning than the official one to a standard keyword.
> Could you describe the difference?
Actually there is not much difference, but what I wanted to say is that
I am concerned, because it is the responsibilities of the compiler to
implement the auto keyword, and if I was just forwarding it in the
macros it would make sense to me, but I'm replacing it with BOOST_TYPEOF.
Which is a decltype on recent compiler but an emulation on older compilier.
In fact I'm just unsure if this wouldn't be a mistake by reusing a
keyword which is already reserved by the standard and where is well
defined usage for it : variable initialization and function return
Possibly decltype would make more sense ? Or even typeof ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk