From 3986805352737346613 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,765aa557d15ef5ba X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Thread: fc772,a175c482da34ebf8 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-09 02:50:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!216.166.71.14!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!news.isc.org!agilent.com!sdd.hp.com!usc.edu!rpi!not-for-mail From: "Paul Mensonides" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated,comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Preprocessor evolution Date: 9 May 2003 05:52:11 -0400 Organization: AT&T Broadband Lines: 31 Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Approved: francis.moderator@robinton.demon.co.uk Message-ID: References: <652361f.0304032218.6b7a67e4@posting.google.com> <3e8f6897.709822312@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3e920e1f.883270640@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3e9f0d33@andromeda.datanet.hu> <8Lzsa.180856$Si4.135479@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUAPrqaquEDnX0m9pzZAQFRBgGAoTnj/WkcTClfvWw8W9TYm2dzIiUQD0pl dwMLUFqRvCdvVSqlwBRdrcXtY470t02b =JQ3F X-Approved-For-Group: Fergus Henderson comp.std.c++ X-Original-Date: 08 May 03 17:57:59 GMT X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPrt6QkHMCo9UcraBAQHM8gH+N+uHyYCJG8rf3DFNhUGCjjupHxNNi2Tu jXLl8QUStJE1y0bjgx+jH/xUqVGCuBabbp7YM2hK8AmT31YbxgooMA== =+epd Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++.moderated:65661 comp.std.c++:19298 Mike Conley wrote: > "Paul Mensonides" wrote in > news:8Lzsa.180856$Si4.135479@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net: > > > Useful preprocessor metaprogramming already exists. > > Yes, but the implmentation seems to consist in large part of the type > of repetition that recursive macros would make unnecessary. And a > good portion of the library is dedicated to making up for the > preprocessor's lack thereof. True recursive macros would be more > general and (probably) less complex than anything that can be > implemented in the current preprocessor. That repetition is only necessary because most preprocessors are not very compliant. Given a strict preprocessor, I can abstract recursion to a single set of macros. With that set, recursion can be exponential, meaning that with 100 macros, you can get 2^100 recursions--e.g. more than you'd ever want and the same set can be used for everything--including some "user-defined" recursive macro such as "SUM." BTW, I'm not disagreeing with your ideas, I'm only saying that they can already be accomplished--though slightly less "cleanly". Regards, Paul Mensonides --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]