On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> The reason I am insistent on minimizing CPP is that it is easy to teach a > pure C manipulator stuff. It is very difficult (I submit) to teach a CPP + > C manipulator much of anything expecially when "nasty" CPP tricks are used. > Plus there are good C manipulation tools coming on line, there are no, and > never will be, good CPP + C manipulation tools. But you're still not proposing manipulating pure C. You're proposing manipulating your new language that looks like C with annotations in comments or special keywords or new control structures or something and can be compiled to C by your "preprocessor". Sure, some (maybe substantial) parts of the code will be equivalent to pure C (with programmable semicolons or whatever, in the sense that error handling gets injected except where it's explicitly told not to), but you can also "manipulate" C+CPP code in the sense that you can expand all the macros and then you'll actually have C semantics so that the manipulations make sense. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130207/c1e4e122/attachment.html>
