David Abrahams wrote:
Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alright. Perhaps what we then are code placeholders like:
[placeholder true-or-false-type]
struct is_void : public true-or-false-type {};
[set true-or-false-type to mpl::true_]
Have you looked through the litre examples from CPPTMP yet? I like
Yes.
the high-level idea here of identifying the replaceable text by name,
but it still seems as though you're trying to do too many things that
should be left to a general-purpose scripting language. For example,
suppose the code snippet needs several instances of true-or-false-type
and some of them need to be replaced with different text?
My goal has always been to be able to do, without resorting to
programming, 99% of the task and leave the remaining 1% to
scripting. This 99% is exactly what I am trying to identify now.
Isn't that a worthy goal? If John thinks declarative XML is
ugly, IMO, compared to XML, imperative scripting is even
uglier (regardless of language). They obscure the intent
of the author and block the natural flow of content which is,
I think, anathema to the wiki-wiki concept with its simple
and instant syntax. I remember you were concerned once that
QuickBook escapes too much to BoostBook and you say "We need
to get Quickbook to a point where you don't need to know
BoostBook in order to get real work done". I'd say the same
thing with the scripting language, once its installed.
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
