Re: scoped macros

troy d. straszheim wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:14:18PM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>
> > I emphasized "might" because I am not quite sure. Like
> > you, I too use lots of macros. Now, I place them at the
> > top. Yes, you can generate an index from them, even make
> > it automatic (special defs?). I find it cumbersome that
> > I can't just include the macros once and have it applied
> > globally.
>
>
> Special defs?  Apologies, I'm new to the docs list.  Currently I can
> just talk all of those [def X [link X /X/]] macros, extract and
> alphabetize the X's, put them in a section called "index", and I have
> a kind of glossary/index (glindex?), a list of links to each X's
> "primary" docs location.  But only in html, not in fo-generated pdf.
> I'm curious as to how you like to generate your indexes.

I was just rambling. I was imagining a special version of
the def especially for index generation. If we were to use
something like [idef X [link X /X/]], we can make the process
that you have just outlined above automatically done by Qb.

> > Another possible behavior would be to get rid of macro
> > scoping at the include level and move them over to the
> > section level as I hinted in my previous email. I'm not
> > yet sure but this seems to be a more practical approach.
> > Either that or we can also have explicit control of macro
> > scopes. I'm leaning towards the former.
>
>
> Ah, I'd missed that.  Personally I think that's the way to go.  With
> unscoped includes and scoped macros, the behaviour is generally more
> consistent with C++.  One could even adopt a convention of .qbk for
> quickbook files and .qbh for quickbook "headers" of macros.  One could
> concievably even enforce a one-definition rule for macros (though I
> don't have a good feel for how much trouble that would save people in
> the long run).

C++ does not have scoped macros, but I think I know what
you mean. ODR for Qb? Oof. Too much I suppose :-)

> > (Oh and BTW, we'll have parametric macros soon so macro
> > names like *something might not work anymore. Again it's
> > a big might. At most, we can allow any character except
> > the parentheses '(', ')', comma ',' and spaces. So the
> > smiley :-) macro in the original QB docs will have to
> > go :-) ).
>
>
> Awesome.  "for" loops, too?  (wink) 

How about a version of Boost Preprocessor Library for Qb?
(joke) Nah, I think that's too much. Let's keep it simple.
A generalized container + for_each might be interesting.

> Anyhow *this *particular *syntax is irrelevant, !anything _would
> ^work.  

Right. It's easy to grep.

Cheers,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
Boost-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs