On 2/21/2011 6:47 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti<lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
IMO, it would be nice if Boost.Preprocessor supported variadics to make metaprogramming [2] easy. However, that does not necessarily mean providing:
BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TUPLE(...)
I would find having these two macros just as useful (and perhaps more correct):
#define BOOST_PP_TO_TUPLE(...) (__VA_ARGS__) BOOST_PP_TUPLE((...))
Then at some point in my pp metaprogram, I will have `BOOST_PP_TUPLE(BOOST_PP_TO_TUPLE(__VA_ARGS__))` which would be as convenient for me (a pp metaprogrammer) to use as `BOOST_PP_TUPLE(__VA_ARGS__)` directly. Of course, the `BOOST_PP_TO_TUPLE(__VA_ARGS__)` invocation will be hidden inside `BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_PARAMS(...)` expansion to respect my library users' request that the `PARAMS` macro invocation should look like a normal C++ function parameter declaration as much as possible.
In summary, I would think that providing `BOOST_PP_TO_TUPLE(...)` and `BOOST_PP_TUPLE((...))` is a good approach.
Sorry, when I said `BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TUPLE(...)` and `BOOST_PP_TUPLE((...))` I meant of course `BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TUPLE_TO_SEQ(...)` and `BOOST_PP_TUPLE_TO_SEQ((...))` (or some other pp tuple macro but without the size argument).
I am oppose to such redundancy. I think BOOST_PP_TUPLE_TO_SEQ(...) is enough.