David Abrahams wrote:
Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I don't seem to understand is why you are so against
alternative (and hopefully simpler) schemes when it is already
clear that there will ultimately be support for python or
some other scripting language as a fall back anyway.
Wasn't clear to me.
QB parametric macros will be implemented. It is part of the plan
since day one. Support for python will be implemented. So, why are
you still worried?
I'm not.
Whew :) That's a relief :) Perhaps I got too chatty again that I
failed to make my intents clear? Oh well... anyway, FYI, I am seriously
into http://www.literateprogramming.com/ftools.html. I'd like to
be an expert on this field in hopes that something really good
will come out of the endeavor.
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans!
Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net
Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey
Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
