Re: [boost] BOOST_FOREACH review results
In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1@sea.gmane.org> gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle: "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary. I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple non-problem.
While there were not so many specific issues discovered during review, I would like to list couple:
What about the name? Shouldn't it be "BOOST_FOR_EACH"? -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.
On Thu, 5 May 2005 13:27 +0100 (BST), Dave Harris <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk>
What about the name? Shouldn't it be "BOOST_FOR_EACH"?
Why? Because of the distinct English words? Since "foreach" is a common keyword in other languages, the BOOST_FOREACH name makes more sense IMHO. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:memo.513312@cix.compulink.co.uk...
In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1@sea.gmane.org> gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle: "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary.
I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple non-problem.
If I am not mistaken you believe that using macro is adding complexity, while many others reported this facility actually simplify their life. So I still consider you disagree in principle: "macros adding complexity; nonmacro alternative will always be simpler". While this is discussible position, I did not see you prove you point enough to reject a submission. Gennadiy
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> skrev i meddelandet news:d5d7h5$3cp$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:memo.513312@cix.compulink.co.uk...
In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1@sea.gmane.org> gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle: "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary.
I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple non-problem.
If I am not mistaken you believe that using macro is adding complexity, while many others reported this facility actually simplify their life. So I still consider you disagree in principle: "macros adding complexity; nonmacro alternative will always be simpler". While this is discussible position, I did not see you prove you point enough to reject a submission.
Gennadiy
*I* understood his position as threefold (at least) 1. There is no problem to solve 2. The solution is complex 3. It includes as macro So, point 3 reduces the overall score, but point 1 is the most important reason to not want the macro included. Bo Persson
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 09:43 -0400, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:memo.513312@cix.compulink.co.uk...
In-Reply-To: <d5c6jf$2bm$1@sea.gmane.org> gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com (Gennadiy Rozental) wrote (abridged):
The only two negative reviews based their rejection on principle: "Macros are evil and so should not be used". While this maybe interesting point in itself, as I see things now, boost practice supports using macros where necessary and macro nature of the tool could not be a compelling enough reason to reject the submission.
For the record, my review was negative and was not based on that principle. I agree with the boost policy of using macros where necessary.
I rejected it because it is an overly complex solution to a simple non-problem.
If I am not mistaken you believe that using macro is adding complexity, while many others reported this facility actually simplify their life. So I still consider you disagree in principle: "macros adding complexity; nonmacro alternative will always be simpler". While this is discussible position, I did not see you prove you point enough to reject a submission.
iirc Dave's argument was that BOOST_FOREACH did not deliver enough "bang per buck" i.e. it was to complex for little benefit. Something that at the time I also agreed with but did not state. I was the only one arguing against macros on principle. /ikh _______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. _______________________________________________________________________
participants (5)
-
Bo Persson -
brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk -
Caleb Epstein -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Iain K. Hanson