On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 09:55:14 -0500, Daniel Larimer wrote:
I think that you have identified a very good use for the variadic argument, but I am not sure that it completely conflicts with the ideas present in the VMD library. So unless providing utilities to convert from VA_ARGS -> SEQ, LIST, Array, etc somehow prevents you from expanding the FOR_EACH macro like you described, I would tend to favor an incremental approach. Don't hold up useful functionality because there is more useful functionality you could add.
Reworking the whole of the PP library with VA support sounds like it would significantly delay the adoption of some very useful tools.
I don't have a problem with the particular macros. I do have a concern about establishing practices which I don't consider to be terribly good practices. I'd really like to see a use case that is different from what I'm envisioning. What I'm envisioning is something like: #define ALGORITHM_B(...) \ ALGORITHM_A(DATA_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)) \ /**/ ALGORITHM_B(a, b, c) I don't find that use case compelling, and that point of view is based on heavy experience utilizing variadics. When I was initially writing chaos- pp, I went down this path, but ultimately rejected it. It simply doesn't scale and results in other intrastructure that doesn't scale. To attempt to clarify, something like ALGORITHM_A(DATA_TO_SEQ(a, b, c)) is not really a problem, but the existence of the ALGORITHM_B definition (as a non-local construct) *is* a problem. Regards, Paul Mensonides