[2003-04-30] Paul Mensonides wrote:

[snip]

Understood :-)

> Rene Rivera wrote:
> > OK, so here's another idea. Let the macro writer/user specify where
> > the replacement point is. With lets say an #eval command. The problem
> > example above could then be implemented as:
> >
> > #define OTHER(x) OTHER_I( #eval x )
> >
> > Or for the user...
> >
> > OTHER( #eval MACRO(#escape ",") )
> 
> The whole point, IMO, is to avoid the need for the intrusive syntax in as
many
> places as possible--both in the implementation and in the interface. 
__comma__,
> __lparen__, and __rparen__ are the only useful ones

I just don't see how you can avoid any "intrusive" syntax. You just can't
write a language (PP in this case) that "does what you mean, not what you
say"... grammar gets in the way ;-)

> --unless you mean to say that
> #escape "..." can include arbitrary macros expansions etc. that are delayed
> until the last possible moment?

No totally sure what arbitrary macros you mean. But yes, the "escaped"
token-string can be anything and it would only get inserted/evaluated as the
_last_ step. So it would have to unwind the parse recursion, and then insert
the escaped token-string. And with the #eval you could control when any
currectly accumulated #escape token-strings are inserted.



-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera@[...].org - grafik@[...].com
-- 102708583@icq
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost