Paul Mensonides wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)
And sometimes, I think, it's _the only_ way. If you are
interested,
please take a look at typeof_internals.htm.zip in the boost
sandbox file vault.
The only way as long as you commit to not look outside C++.
Which is the whole point from a library perspective. Relying on awk (or any other external tool) to write C++ isn't so bad, but relying on it to compile C++ is unacceptable.
One does not rely on the preprocessor to compile C++. Andrei's argument was that these tools can be used to create C++ code, not compile them. However I would argue with Andrei ( you forgot Python among your tools BTW ) that while these tools might be able to create C++ code, it is currently far more difficult to use them to do that than it is to use the C++ preprocessor, largely becaause of lack of code in these tools to do so. Also, of course, you would need to convince the C++ standards people that some other tool, as you mentioned, should be integrated into the C++ compiler to replace the C++ preprocessor as a pre-compiler code generator. Good luck !