Iain K. Hanson wrote:
If we accept a macro as a lib into boost we are sending a message to the C++ community that macros are o.k. If one accepts this position, what does he do with when a truely useful and/or necessary facility can only be implemented with a macro? By necesity one must do one of the following:
a) Accept that macros are OK or b) conclude that the facility in question isn't really useful or necessary I don't see any way around this.
Not only that but we are effective extending the language.
Maybe the necessity of a macro points to a direction in which the language needs to be extended. But pending that, we're stuck with a macro.
And where do we stop. Why not accept awk, perl, and python scripts to re-write our programs. I see little difference.
Hmmm - I see no connection here. Robert Ramey