"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yep, I've noticed. I actually voiced that opinion even though your > macro _in particular_ seemed OK just to set the records for the kind of > trouble that can ocurr if code repetition tasks are replaced by macros > without properly balancing the drawbacks and implied subtelties. > > For instance, many of the complains I've received were because invalid > macro arguments led to impossible to understand error messages. Even > if the macro just adds a declaration, figuring out the source of the > error can be impossible without knowing the expanded text of the > macro. We even tried to code-up some sort of utility to expand macros > on-the-fly with the given arguments, but that was impractical for us > because the complete macro expansion could depend on many other macros > and so on, so the "utility" must have access to the entire source and > include tree.
I have just such a utility. It's called "g++ -E". Then I have some emacs code which roughly reformats the results so that I can read them. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
