Your mail makes it sound like you want to look at gcc -E output, but of course you'd find that much worse. An obvious issue is that while sometimes macros obfuscate code, sometimes they simplify (e.g. as part of the API of underlying code). What I imagine being of some potential (though perhaps small) value is the notion of a fully standards-compliant compiler (or perhaps an approximation such as Comeau), for which conditional includes are processed, macros only required to patch in hacks for non-Standard-compliant compilers have their Standard substitution performed, but other macros are left alone. I imagine differentiating macros on this basis would have to be done manually, after which the processing could be done easily enough with a bit of sed/awk/perl/Ruby/etc hackery. I don't see enough value in it to override other demands on my time, but best of luck. - Tony -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of mbiddeg@mtn.co.ug Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 3:21 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] boost.org Source-Code, Concepts & Idioms. Good morning Guys. Do you think it feasible to have a section in boost.org that shows (& permits download) the libraries' source-code at its bare-minimum, without all the configuration to clutter the code? The only problem with easily & clearly understanding the boost libraries is the abundance of conditional compilation directives, & a multitude of macros for some libraries. This makes it hard to read & understand. Seeing the bare source-code without the directives & macros (I know it is very necessary for portability, & avoiding boiler-plate code) would make the concepts easier to understand. In addition, I do agree with Scott Meyers in the section below, from the link: http://www.artima.com/cppsource/top_cpp_aha_moments.html#r10 "...Second, I think it's regrettable that this kind of innovation doesn't often get written up and disseminated for the wider C++ development community. Boost does an enviable job of fostering the creation of useful software, including user-level documentation that is at least serviceable. I wish it did a better job of getting the word out on the design and implementation techniques employed by the library authors, because there's some really interesting-and largely unknown-stuff going on under the hood in Boost libraries..." What is your opinion on both these issues? I do believe the entire C++ community would benefit from both. Awaiting your feedback. Thank you. Have a nice day. ______________________________________________________________________ Kizza George Mbidde | Interconnect Billing Systems Analyst | MTN Uganda | MTN Towers 22 Hannington Road | P.O. Box 24624 Kampala Uganda | East-Africa | email: mbiddeg@mtn.co.ug [cid:image001.png@01C92D0F.BE2B7C10]