Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
I don't know. > 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. Okay. As long as you can handle all the kinds of cases I needed to cover in CPPTMP relatively cleanly I will be satisfied. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- 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
