Re: Syntax and redundancy

[Rici Lake <lua@...>]

On 1-Sep-05, at 12:51 PM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:

> On 9/1/05, Rici Lake <lua@ricilake.net> wrote:
> > None of those test cases has a "," unprotected by "("..")"
>
> Is there a case where `,' is neither protected nor protectable
> or trivially changeable to s.th. that does not need protection?

I think there are usually workarounds, but they can be ugly. Doing a {}  
block as a macro argument, whether or not it has the {} around it, is  
prone to errors:

// The one I mentioned before:
do ({ int i, j; ...

// Initializers:
do ({ struct npair i = {2, 3}; ...

// Templates:
do ({ Pair<int, double> i; ...

That last one is probably the hardest to get around. Of course, it only  
applies to c++.

This reference shows an interesting partial workaround within the Boost  
framework:  
http://www.kangaroologic.com/interfaces/libs/interfaces/doc/index.html? 
path=3.3.10

There was also some discussion about this on the FOREACH macro review  
earlier this year.