David's characterization is somewhat correct, but is also a bit simplistic. The LLVM project does certainly use templates (including partial specialization etc), but we prefer to keep this as an implementation detail in a library. Exposing "complex" template code through the public interface of a library generally make the library "scary" to those developers who don't consider themselves to be C++ gurus. This design point also reduces build time for the LLVM code itself. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Sep 1, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Larry Evans <cppljevans@cox-internet.com> wrote:
On 09/01/07 13:30, David A. Greene wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 13:12, Larry Evans wrote:
It maybe too late now, but I'd think boost's wave might have saved them some time in writing the preprocessor.
Agreed. I've been involved with llvm for about six months now and there's a general fear of using anything from Boost, or templates in general. I'm not meaning to slam the llvm developers. What they've done is really quite good. But they have certain constraints (embedded, low memory, etc.) that makes them hesitant to use more advanced C++ techniques.
My initial reponse to this is "aren't they optimizing first, then correcting?" IOW, why not use templates to ease getting a correct compiler, and *then* worry about satisfying the constraints? Of course, after thinking a bit, I'd guess that's probably oversimplifying.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost