AspectG++ ?
Hello Folks You certainly know about aspect orientated programming. http://www.aspectc.org/ Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc? Would be cool to define aspect because it would make your code much smaller and more readable. Additionally it comes in very handy if you wanna debug something. best regards David [aka .leviathan] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
AspectG++ ?
Hello Folks You certainly know about aspect orientated programming. http://www.aspectc.org/ Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc? Would be cool to define aspect because it would make your code much smaller and more readable. Additionally it comes in very handy if you wanna debug something. best regards David [aka .leviathan] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: AspectG++ ?
>The following is just my opinion and others may disagree, but I don't >think it's a good idea because I think that the costs would greatly >outweigh the benefits. As long as it supports the development of a productive and informative conversation, I'm glad about any kind of opinion. >OK, let's assume that the Aspect C++ group contributes a beautifully >engineered set of extensions to g++, meeting all the coding standards, >done with great style and with a large regression test suite, properly >legally assigned to the FSF. Great code, slap the GNU label on it and >ship it, right? AOP is not a new language. It's just an improofement of OOP. While nowadays we have to put debug-logic into our class declaration, AOP allows us to go a step further and separate the logic from the duty. Instead of putting stderr-streams and such stuff into declarations, we can deploy logging of certain classes and class-groups into separat files. It wouldn't talk "another language", it just would help to express actions a programmer is already programming anyway today in a more unified and eysier way. I'm NO compiler architect, but from my point of perspective - please correct me if I'm wrong - for adding support for AOP into C/C++ part of gcc, only minor changes would be needed. best regards David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: AspectG++ ?
>And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable. Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts). It's one of the aspects of AOP that sourcecode will be stripped down enormous, because generalization is much eaysier. But anyway, seems as there is really no ISO standard yet for AOP. Seems as there first have to be made some definitions, before I can hope to use AOP features in my one-and-only compiler... :-( Ok, well, in this case, let me ask a very naive question: Who do I need to mail to, in order to motivate the definition of an ISO standard for AOP in C/C++? ^.^" best regards David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
