Re: [Opencxx-users] openc++ limitations

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

Brendan Miller wrote:
>
> So for instance, I could have a decorator that performs logging
> (although I'd need some kind of stringize for that for that as well).
>
> Probably this isn't the right tool for that. Especially since it seems
> like it would be hard to use in production if I can't use the stl and
> boost.
>   

Indeed. In fact,  I have found the whole idea of putting some markup 
right into the source code flawed, for one simple reason: it's not C++ 
any more, and thus, is tied to a particular tool. It's easier to keep 
the transformation description separate, so at least the code keeps 
working, albeit un-instrumented, with ordinary C++ compilers.
While logging seems to be the one example people keep referring to in 
such cases, I haven't found much else that such approaches would be 
useful for. The same holds true for Aspect-Oriented Programming...This 
reminds me, may be you would be interested in ApectC++ 
(http://aspectc.org/) ?

Regards,
       Stefan

-- 

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