Re: static globals in SSQL macro expansion -> multiple definition linker errors

[Warren Young]

Chris Frey wrote:
> 
> It is the syntax, I must admit (it's so top-heavy with markup),

XML can be ugly, but take another look at what I posted.  It's very 
nearly the same number of characters as current SSQLS definitions.

> plus needing
> some other dependency on my system to build.  

Naturally if there's a separate tool, it will be built and installed 
along with the library.  There may be prerequisites like xsltproc or 
Perl, by they're very readily available on all common systems, if not 
installed already.

The only inconvenience to the user is when setting up the build system 
for their own project.  And most people will probably be suitably well 
served by cutting-and-pasting from the examples' build system.

> I'm reminded of Microsoft's special interface language here.

...or Motif's, or Qt's, or...  There are a great many other projects 
that have run into this same wall, and routed around it the same way.

> Also, the idea of generating code usually tells me that something is
> broken in the design or abstraction somewhere.

We're _creating types_ here, for a statically-typed language.  Code must 
be generated at or before compile time, somehow.  Abstractions don't 
enter into it.

>  I'm not totally against code generation: I'm pondering
> it myself for my own CPPHP project.

Then you can consider this a prototype pass for your own effort.  Steal 
the result when we get it right. :)

> The syntax makes me shudder, but it's the best in the field so far,
> it seems. :-)

Nobody likes XML for XML's sake.  We like it because of all the tools 
that have sprung up around it.