Re: [Boost-users] supressing "extra ; " warnings with GCC 3.4 (summary?)

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 12:02:31

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen

>  > How about adding a superfluous struct at the end of the function?
> 
>  > #define f(T) void my_func(T i) { do_sthg(); } struct 
> semicolon_eater {}
> 
> I haven't tried this yet, but it's the sort of thing I was 
> fishing for.  If the language says semicolons are illegal in 
> certain places, but I want semicolons there (maybe for good 
> reasons, maybe "just because, dammit!"), is there a clever 
> construct that will let me get away with it?
> 
> I'm gonna go try this (or something like it) soon, will report back.
> The advisability of doing this sort of thing is, perhaps, 
> debatable; one of the reasons I wanted to push to GCC 3.4 is 
> precisely this sort of thing: what are we doing that we shouldn't be?

As I'm sure you're aware of my opinion on this, so I won't repeat it.

If you going to do it anyway, then add a namespace somewhere...

namespace empty { };

...and then make the macro expansion end with:

using namespace ::empty

As in,

#define f() \
    void my_func() { do_something(); } \
    using namespace ::empty \
    /**/

f();

This shouldn't introduce any names into whatever scope you're in.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides