"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57@[...].com>  writes:

>  David Abrahams wrote:
> > ** and which I'm not sure is even addressing a real-world problem.  It
> >    might be; I am just not sure.
> 
>  It is not something that can't be worked around, but it is a
>  nuisance.  Basically, you have to expand a macro to produce a
>  comma--but do it only at the last possible step so it doesn't go
>  through any other macros.  The problem is not that so much.  Rather,
>  it implies that you have to pass everything else as such an
>  "invocable" entity--which is annoying at best.

I was talking about the "macro scoping" feature currently under
consideration in the LWG, not Vesa's proposal.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost