Paul Mensonides makes several interesting points "...against just about anything that attempts to make a macro invocation look more like regular code" (his words). I'd like to first take up what I might call the "convenience" argument. Paul writes:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen
As others have pointed out, it's more convenient in many ways,
It's more convenient in exactly one way only: a particular *editor* has trouble properly automatically formatting code. The last thing we should be at all concerned about is automatic formatting in some editor.
I would point out, first, that it probably isn't "a particular" editor, or "some" editor, but probably _most_ or even _all_ editors. I'm a member of the One True Church of Emacs; but I'd bet that those heathens^h^h^h^h^h^h^h fine people in the First Unified Church of vi, or any other even fancier IDE, will have the same problems. I'd also argue that editor convenience is not an unimportant issue. My code editor is what I look at all day. It's probably what most of us look at all day. Auto indentation and syntax highlighting are not necessary for the preservation of life and limb, freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness, but they _do_ go a long way to keeping me happy and sane. This is not a definitive argument in favor of syntactically pleasing semicolons; I'll try to make a better argument in another posting. I just wanted to point out that keeping our editors happy will tend to keep Boost users happy, and that it's not a trivial consideration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Steffen, Ph.D. "There are two ways to write error-free Software Engineer IV programs; only the third one works." Numerica Corporation ph (970) 419-8343 x27 "Pie are not square. Pie are round. fax (970) 223-6797 Cornbread are square" dgsteffen@numerica.us ... anon (usenet)