"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> writes:
We have a similar problem in typeof, and at this point semicolon is not required. This leads to all the problems with the editor that you mentioned, and, if the user does supply the (second) semicolon, some compilers emit warnings, so I am by no means happy with the situation.
However, if the semicolon is required, and the user doesn't supply it, the compiler will produce an error message, which will expose implementation details of this macro, and most likely be of little help.
Actually, that seems much better to me than the alternative: if the macro supplies the semicolon, and the user mistakenly supplies an extra semicolon, many compilers *don't* warn/error, which means that the user doesn't find out her code is nonportable until it breaks on some other compiler or set of compiler options.
So, the choice is actually between two evels, and I am not really sure which one is less evel.
Also, I think, this problem is very generic, and once it's decided which style is prefferrable, it may be a good idea to turn it into a guideline, so that it is consistent between the Boost libraries.
Yeah. My only hesitation is that Paul Mensonides as been a vocal opponent of requiring the semicolon in many contexts. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com