From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-16 05:42:27
David Abrahams wrote:
> FWIW, one of the main reasons I brought this issue up was that I
> was hoping you'd convince me that the reasons to do it your way were
> important enough to outweigh the reasons to go the other way.
If you let people add a semicolon after the macro, how can you change the
macro later in a way that doesn't tolerate a trailing semicolon? The
expansion of the macro is an implementation detail; the interface shouldn't
depend on a particular expansion.
Right?