Hey Folks, Coming back to this topic after several months... Paul Mensonides writes:
Well, here's a BOOST_SEMICOLON definition, in case anyone is interested (no #include-guard required):
// <boost/semicolon.hpp>
namespace boost { namespace empty { } }
#define BOOST_SEMICOLON \ using namespace ::boost::empty \ /**/
It doesn't introduce any names into the scope where it is used, and it can be used any number of times in the same scope. It can be used at namespace and function scope, though it is not necessary at function scope. It *can't* be used in class scope, but it isn't necessary there either.
It turns out that, in some places where we've got heavy macro programming going on, this didn't work; I kept getting "expected nested-name-specifier before 'namespace' " sorts of errors. It turns out that #define BOOST_SEMICOLON typedef int semicolon_allowed_after_this makes GCC 3.4 happier; I don't understand the grammar issues involved. ... just a report from the trenches. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Steffen, Ph.D. On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: Software Engineer IV Numerica Corporation "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." ph (970) 419-8343 x27 fax (970) 223-6797 -- Wolfgang Pauli dgsteffen@numerica.us