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: [...]
There is no reason to prefer replacing '<' and'>' in the syntax for the template parameters with '(' and ')' other than to complicate matters unnecessarily.
That, of course, is not entirely true; it's an alternative to replacing only commas with ")(", which makes things unnatural to read.
After thinking about this last night I have decided to use a pp-array
instead of a pp-seq as the extended syntax for the non-variadic version and as an alternate syntax for the variadic version. So the syntaxes for TTI_TEMPLATE,
using 'template<class,class,class> struct xxx' and using 'template<class,int,template<**class,class> > struct yyy' are:
TTI_TEMPLATE(xxx,BOOST_PP_NIL) // (1) non-variadic only TTI_TEMPLATE(xxx) // (2) variadic only 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> ? 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 ). Eddie