On Fri,  4 Nov 2011 22:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Dave Abrahams   
    wrote:   
      
   >on Fri Nov 04 2011, "Gennaro Prota"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:12:52 +0100, Daniel Krügler   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Since gcc 4.7 has recently implemented user-defined literals, it is now   
   >>> finally possible to define a binary literal operator template that   
   >>> behaves very much like built-in literals.   
   >>   
   >> "Finally possible"? Apart from fun, what is the real-word need   
   >> for this stuff?   
   >   
   >Haven't you always wanted to write an entire lisp (or   
   >haskell or c++ or...) compiler as a template metaprogram so you can   
   >embed that language in your C++ code?  ;-)   
   >   
   >Everything we might do with template metaprogramming today can now have   
   >arbitrary syntax, without the limitations imposed by C++, if you're   
   >willing to write the programs inside user-defined literals.   
      
   I don't know what user defined literals are but it sounds like more   
   obfuscated garbage which is what template meta-programming is.  I've   
   read some of your book on template meta-programming and I find it hard   
   to believe that there's any real world use for such "gobbledegook".  I   
   bet there's an easier way to solve whatever problem template   
   meta-programming is the solution for.  Complexity costs.  We need   
   programming techniques and tools that allow average programmers to   
   write understandable and maintainable software efficiently.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)