Re: Re: syntax suggestion

David Abrahams wrote:
> Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, it mirrors both the python and luabind syntax. But I really
>>dislike dropping older compilers. 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to like the idea of dropping them.

I can accept dropping VC6, because it's so damn hard to work around it's
bugs. But this would mean dropping VC7 as well, which is a reasonably
new compiler still in use by many. I don't know how older versions of
other compilers handle function types..

>>Maybe supporting both ala Boost.Function?
> 
> 
> There's always:
> 
>     class_<C (*)(A,B)>("C")
> 
> for the others, if we can afford not to  have C deduced at the outer
> level w/o partial specialization.

Yeah, we can afford that.

>>>The only advantage I can see to using the []s is that it becomes a
>>>bit cleaner to define nested classes.
>>
>>FWIW, this is what it this currently looks like in luabind:
>>
>>    module(L)
>>    [
>>        class_<X>("X")
>>            .static_
>>            [
>>                class_<Y>("Y")
>>                   ...
>>            ]
>>    ];
> 
> 
> Nit: what is .static_ supposed to mean?  Maybe .scope[ ... ] would be
> better?

Yeah, it probably would. It was static_ because it was introduced so
that static functions could be registered. I guess you could read it as
"static_scope", but that's not really a good argument. ;)

-- 
Daniel Wallin


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click