On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 7/11/2011 6:25 PM, lcaminiti wrote:
Edward Diener-3 wrote:
On 7/11/2011 5:02 PM, lcaminiti wrote:
Edward Diener-3 wrote:
On 7/11/2011 2:45 PM, Joel falcou wrote:
See :
https://github.com/MetaScale/nt2/blob/master/modules/sdk/include/nt2/sdk/det...
for the file, line 85 and after.
The point is it works without variadics
Line 87: #define NT2_PP_DETAILS_STRIP_PARENS_I(...) 1,1 Line 91: #define NT2_PP_DETAILS_TEST_ARITY_I(a,b,c,...) c Line 96: #define NT2_PP_DETAILS_MAYBE_STRIP_PARENS_2_I(...) __VA_ARGS__
Clearly it needs variadic macro support.
I have already added a REMOVE_PARENS ( the equivalent to NT2_PP_STRIP(X) in your URL above ) to a proposed addition to pp-lib which I am discussing with Paul Mensonides, based on the updated variadic macro support on which both of us worked and which is now in the Boost trunk.
My point is also that I may well be able to simplify the BOOST_TTI_TEMPLATE macros in TTI using variadic macro support techniques, as Lorenzo suggested, but I do not feel correct in dropping macro support support for compilers which do not support variadic macros although I understand there are few of them left.
I will later reply to all your comments on my review but let me quickly clarify a couple of things.
My suggestion was to have the *same* macro TTI_TEMPLATE handle *both* variadics tupletes and sequences.
I did understand it, and I am willing to do that, but of course it needs variadic macro support in the compiler. But what do you think I should do if the compiler does not support variadic macros ? The possibilities are:
I was trying to say for compilers without variaidics (detected by BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS) you can do:
TTI_TEMPLATE(trait, [tpl_signature_seq_ {class | struct}] name)
And for compilers with variadics you can do:
TTI_TEMPLATE(trait, [{tpl_signature_seq_ | tpl_signature_va_} {class | struct}] name)
Can't you? (Am I missing something?)
I do not want to stick the tpl-signature as a prefix sequence to the name. It is ugly and confusing. For some reason you like this sort of thing but I find it poor. Furthermore having to extract the template parameters from the 'name' itself may be undoable even with varaiadic macros much less with only non-variadic macros.
You have fallen in love with this sort of thing, perhaps because you have had to do something similar your 'local' library, but I will opt for a simpler and clearer way, even if it means a few extra macro names.
Fair enough. My comment #5 was just a NOTE so I actually really don't feel strongly about it (and "love" would instead be a strong feeling ;) ). If I'm the only one suggesting this syntax, you should probably ignore it.
However, as you suggested, I can do:
TTI_TEMPLATE(name,pp-seq-or-variadic-template-parameters)
Sure, my comment #6 (removing VM macros) is independent from my comment #5 (removing CHECK_PARAMS macros).
with variadic parameters support, and will look to implement a single macro on that side rather than both TTI_TEMPLATE and TTI_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS.
I'm not sure about this... wouldn't you expect the macros to be symmetric with and without variadics? In other words, if there is a CHECK_PARAMS without variadics, I would expect it to be a CHECK_PARAMS also with variadics. That is because CHECK_PARAMS does not semantically have anything to do with variadics, it is just "the macro you use when you specify the template parameters" (variadics or not). Thanks, --Lorenzo