Rene Rivera wrote:
> > 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 ;-)

You can't avoid it entirely.  As you say, the grammar...  However, you can limit
the intrusiveness to only those three tokens and only when they are used.

> > --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.

What I meant was something like:

#define ID(x) x
#define MACRO() 123

ID( #escape "MACRO()" )

Are you suggesting that the result should be "MACRO()" or that the
invocation/processing of the escaped string should be deferred until after
top-level scanning moves past it (conceptually)?  In that case, it would expand
to "123".  BTW, I like the second one better, but only because I can think of,
as usual, pathological usages of it. ;)

Regards,
Paul Mensonides

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