Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] Practical usefulness
From: Abel Sinkovics (abel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-05 01:10:08
On 2015-06-04 21:36, Evgeny Panasyuk wrote:
> Yes, this is why I propose to use special name for macro with lambda
> inside, and describe limitations in documentation.
> As I understand, currently there is trade-off between using labmda for
> compile-time string and other techniques like "macro iteration". So,
> by providing two versions we postpone decision to library user.
> Of course I expect that in future ISO C++ versions we would have some
> better option.
It will need to be done in a way not to confuse the library users (so
what is the difference? which one should I use? why? etc).
Note that when someone creates a library interface with this, people
using his library are likely to create compile-time strings (eg. when
someone is writing a regex, dot graph, etc).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk