From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-15 14:38:59
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andy Little
> Oops soory. However this identifies a point which I dont
> think has been made in this discussion. A generic macro is
> just a shapeless blob standing in for some text. Therefore I
> dont see it is possible to make general rules such as to
> whether a trailing semicolon is included. There is simply not
> enough definition.
> One would have to classify the *class* of macro rigorously
> (probably via the
> grammar) first. eg is this macro representing a typeid, an
> assignment-expression etc. Isnt this really what we are
> discussing ... fitting a macro into the grammar of the
> language? Identify the *class* of macro in the grammar to
> identify whether it is possible to use a particular macro in
> situations where a semicolon is not required, or whether the
> semicolon is always necessary, hence rightfully included as
> part of the macro.
I wouldn't mind this approach. In fact, I kind of like it. It puts the
appropriate emphasis on a macro's syntactic effect. But I don't think that it
will help the various problems that people have (like extra semicolons) or
editor issues. For example, if a macro expands to a function definition, then
there shouldn't be a semicolon, which puts us squarely back in the situation we
have now.
Regards,
Paul Mensonides