"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57@comcast.net> writes:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen
As others have pointed out, it's more convenient in many ways,
It's more convenient in exactly one way only: a particular *editor* has trouble properly automatically formatting code.
No, I pointed out several other practical considerations, not least of which is that if you make a mistake with the other convention, your compiler is unlikely to tell you about it and your code will be nonportable.
The last thing we should be at all concerned about is automatic formatting in some editor.
Convenience, usability, and the chance of not making a trivial unintentional error are important factors in the design of any component.
and IMHO more "natural" to have the semicolon.
You couldn't have said it better. This is *precisely* why there shouldn't be a trailing semicolon. This mentality needs to be utterly broken--it is the primary reason that macro-related problems come up. Macros are not functions. Invocations are are not expressions, they are not statements, and they are not declarations. They are not part of the syntax model of C++ at all. If you get rid the preconception that they are (or should be), it is actually quite a bit _less_ natural to have the trailing semicolon. It means that the macro only accomplishes *part* of its function--it only generates *part* of the code.
Sorry, _what_ means the macro only accomplishes *part* of its function?
Sometimes that's necessary; this isn't one of those cases. The viewpoint that must prevail is that macros are code writers.
That is my viewpoint, for sure. I'm also in favor of making them as easy to use and as foolproof as possible. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com