On 7/11/2011 11:55 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
[I have not looked in detail at the TTI library and only *just* caught up on this email exchange...whew!]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti<lorcaminiti@gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
[...]
I do not like your syntax. I much prefer the syntax I already have, with a separate macro parameter merely being the template parameters if the end-user is looking for a match, ie.
TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,BOOST_PP_NIL) TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,(class)(int)(template<typename class> struct))
This is acceptable.
or for variadic macros
TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl) TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,class,int,template<typename class> struct)
Didn't Paul Mensonides (sp? sorry Paul!) rail against such constructs just a week or two ago? :) I.e., shouldn't the template signature be packaged into a single parameter?
I do not know what you are referring to regarding Paul Mensonides' opinion but a large part of variadic macros value, IMO, is that they provide a better syntax for the end-user while the pp-lib data types provide much richer functionality internally. So I see no reason why the variadic macro syntax should not be provided for end-user use.