Re: [Opencxx-users] openc++ limitations

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Hi Brendan,

Brendan Miller wrote:
> I was looking around for some way to be able to do reflection with
> template metaprogramming, and was excited to find this tool.
>   

Out of curiosity: what are you aiming to do ? Metaprogramming via 
templates and via OpenC++ are two radically different approaches. Do you 
want to mix them ? Or have you ran into limitations of what you can do 
via template metaprogramming, and now are hoping to find a way using 
OpenC++ ?

> I'm wondering what kind of limitations it imposes though.
> Specifically, the website mentions that partial specialization isn't
> supported yet. Does that mean that if I make any use of templates with
> partial specialization in my code the openc++ compiler will barf, or
> does that mean that there is some limitations in how you can operate
> on templates with metaobjects?
>   
I have very limited experience with the OpenC++ metaprogramming model 
myself, but have worked a lot with the C++ parser that is part of 
OpenC++. The latter is rather limited, and falls over even with modern 
versions of libstdc++. I haven't dared to try it with boost.

I have been making adjustments to a version of the OpenC++ C++ parser 
that I integrated into Synopsis (http://synopsis.fresco.org) a long time 
(> 8 years) ago. That version works fine with boost (I use it to 
generate docs for boost.python, for example). However, in that version I 
don't support the kind of metaprogramming originally promoted by OpenC++.
Instead, I'm suggesting a different approach where the tool's internal 
code representation (IR) is made accessible (parse tree, AST, etc.) so 
any further source-to-source transformations can be scripted. That is 
still a project in progress.

Regards,
       Stefan

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...