"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:001601c286c9$64eedf40$6401a8c0@;c161550b...
> [about a C++ preprocessor]
>> This one I'd like to see, but it might be too easy. There isn't much to
>> Cpp.
>
> Explain this to the MSVC and MWCW folks. They both got it wrong. That's the
> main reason for which I'd like an open-source, good quality C++
> preprocessor.
>
> And by the way, I understand some preprocessors take a pathologically long
> time with the Preprocessor Library
Only if you use it in pathological ways ;-). For example, it's
important to have a healthy percentage of vertical repetition in any
moderately complex usage. However, you want that for other reasons,
like debuggability. The PP lib has been nicely speed-tuned to work
fast enough even with our "most competent" compilers <wink>.
> (something I'm too scared to look at)
<g> Be bold!
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
