[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?
OK but don't you need something in between the inner template typename and class? (Because they can be any arbitrary type name for non-type template parameters.) For example (again, leaving variadics a side for a moment):
TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,BOOST_PP_NIL) TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,(class)(int)(template<typename)(class> struct)) // [1]
If so, is that better than the following?
TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,BOOST_PP_NIL) TTI_TEMPLATE(mytpl,(class)(int)(template( (typename)(class) ) struct)) // [2]
(You know I (somewhat strongly this time) prefer [2] to [1], see my comment #4. But that's just my opinion.)
FWIW, I, too, prefer [2] over [1], and I also kind of like Lorenzo's earlier suggested syntax of TTI_TEMPLATE( mytmp ) // template signature unspecified TTI_TEMPLATE( template( ( class ) ( int ) ( template( ( typename ) ( class ) ) ) struct mytmp ) // template signature specified I *might* even go so far as to say that the equivalent variadic version would just replace the Boost.PP Seqs with Boost.PP Tuples, and no more (i.e., still don't use '<'s and '>'s): TTI_TEMPLATE( template( class, int, template( typename, class ) ) struct mytmp ) // variadic version But that might not be a good idea, and, even worse, might be too radical :) - Jeff