On 7/12/2011 7:27 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2011 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com>wrote: [...]
TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(3,(class,**int,template<class,class>))) // (3) both
[...]
Isn't the above a size 4 Boost.PP Array? Or are you purposely demonstrating the ease with which the user would make mistakes with this syntax? :)
You copied it wrong from my reply. Are you purposely demonstrating the ease by which template parameters may be copied incorrectly<g> ?
Sorry... I really don't understand what this means...
Mr. Hellrung copied the example incorrectly when he replied.
You are right that it should be:
TTI_TEMPLATE(yyy,(4,(class,int,template<class,class>))) // (3) both
Despite my error in counting commas ( or addding 1 to my count ), I prefer this syntax rather than inventing a different one. I realized that it is easier presenting a pp-array than a pp-seq, as long as one can simply count commas ( unlike yours truly ).
How may commas do you count for the following case? Warning: It's a trick question ;)
TTI_TEMPLATE(t, (?, (typename R, typename A0, typename A1, R (fptr)(A0, A1))))
I count 4 in the tuple part of the array, but since one is inside a nested tuple, ? = 4 and not 5. Are we done with school for the day <g> ? The point being, no doubt, that it is not all that easy to fill in the length for the array. I will make a point in the documentation to explain how to determine the size of the pp-lib array. It is still much easier to use the pp-lib array and transcribe the rest from the actual template parameters of the template you are searching for than either: 1) My original syntax using pp-seq. 2) Your suggested syntax replacing <> with () and other fun syntactical goodies. Let it be. It really is the easiest solution for the end-user and for me when it comes to non-variadic macros. Hopefully nearly everyone will be able to use the variadic macros syntax, either now or in the immediate future, and this syntactical issue will be completely unimportant. Paul Mensonides has said that given variadic macro support the pp-lib array is no longer useful and I concur. The only reason I am using it here is to support those very few programmers who may need it now without variadic macros. Doing really complicated preprocessor programming with non-variadic macros merely to support some syntax which may or may not be better than what I have decided is not my idea of fun or seem worthwhile to me, and I am pretty happy with my solution despite your clever example. Eddie