"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> skrev i meddelandet news:d5d7h5$3cp$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:memo.513312@cix.compulink.co.uk...
In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1@sea.gmane.org> gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle: "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary.
I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple non-problem.
If I am not mistaken you believe that using macro is adding complexity, while many others reported this facility actually simplify their life. So I still consider you disagree in principle: "macros adding complexity; nonmacro alternative will always be simpler". While this is discussible position, I did not see you prove you point enough to reject a submission.
Gennadiy
*I* understood his position as threefold (at least) 1. There is no problem to solve 2. The solution is complex 3. It includes as macro So, point 3 reduces the overall score, but point 1 is the most important reason to not want the macro included. Bo Persson