On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:37:18 -0700, "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> said:
I'm sympathetic to this point of view. The reason it doesn't seem so bad to me is that only a relatively small part of coding with BIL is actually defining interfaces; the code which uses the interfaces is just ordinary C++.
Yeah, but in order to write any ordinary C++ using an interface, you must first (mentally) parse the interface. Yes, you won't write much IDL, but it will be read many times...
Do you have any suggestions for improving the macro syntax? For instance, do you like David Abrahams's suggested syntax better:
DECLARE_INTERFACE( Interface, ((int)(print)(ostream&)(int)) );
Maybe it will grow on me :)
Do you have any experimental code for defining these interfaces?
I've started work on it, but it doesn't work yet.
I hope it comes together.
If not, do you forsee major issues in implementing them later?
I'm sure it is theoretically correct, and am optimistic that it will work in practice because it uses the same techniques as the macro-based approach. However I can't say for sure that it will work until I see it.
I'm glad to hear your optimism, anyway. BTW, cool library. Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Vogt mattvogt@warpmail.net