VMD has a number of specific macros for parsing data types. Each of these macros asks if some input is a particular VMD data type.
It is possible to pass an empty argument to a macro. The official terminology for this in the C++ standard is an argument "consisting of no preprocessing tokens".
Let us consider a number of cases without worrying too much what the macro output represents.
Consider these two function-like macros:
#define SMACRO() someoutput #define EMACRO(x) otheroutput x
The first macro takes no parameters so invoking it must always be done by
and passing any arguments to it would be invalid.
The second macro takes a single parameter. it can be evoked as
but it also can be invoked as
In the second invocation of EMACRO we are passing an empty argument to the macro. Similarly for any macro having 1 or more parameters, an empty argument can be validly passed for any of the parameters, as in
#define MMACRO(x,y,z) x y z MMACRO(1,,2)
An empty argument is an argument even if we are passing nothing.
Because an empty argument can be passed for a given parameter of a macro does not mean one should do so. Any given macro will specify what each argument to a macro should represent, and it is has normally been very rare to encounter a macro which specifies that an empty argument can logically be passed for a given argument. But from the perspective of standard C++ it is perfectly valid to pass an empty argument for a macro parameter.
The notion of passing empty arguments can be extended to passing empty data which "consists of no preprocessing tokens" in slightly more complicated situations. It is possible to pass empty data as an argument to a variadic macro in the form of variadic macro data, as in
#define VMACRO(x,...) x __VA_ARGS__
Here one passes empty data as the variadic macro data and it is perfectly valid C++. Please notice that this different from
which is not valid C++ since something must be passed for the variadic argument. Similar one could invoke the macro as
where one is passing variadic macro data but an element in the variadic macro data is empty.
Furthermore if we are invoking a macro which expects a Boost PP data type, such as a tuple, we could also validly pass empty data for all or part of the data in a tuple, as in
#define TMACRO(x,atuple) x atuple TMACRO(somedata,())
In this case we are passing a 1 element tuple where the single element itself is empty.
In this case we are passing a 4 element tuple where the second element is empty.
Again either invocation is valid C++ but it is not necessarily what the designed of the macro has desired, even if in both cases the macro designer has specified that the second parameter must be a tuple for the macro to work properly.
Similar to passing empty arguments in various ways to a macro, the data which a macro returns ( or 'generates' may be a better term ) could be empty, in various ways. Again I am not necessarily promoting this idea as a common occurrence of macro design but merely pointing it out as valid C++ preprocessing.
#define RMACRO(x,y,z) RMACRO(data1,data2,data3)
It is perfectly valid C++ to return "nothing" from a macro invocation. In fact a number of macros in Boost PP do that based on the preprocessor metaprogramming logic of the macro, and are documented as such.
Similarly one could return nothing as part or all of a Boost PP data type or even as part of variadic macro data.
#define TRETMACRO(x,y,z) () #define TRETMACRO1(x,y,z) (x,,y,,z) #define VRETMACRO(x,y,z) x,,y,,z
Here again we are returning something but in terms of a Boost PP tuple or in terms of variadic data, we have elements which are empty.
In the examples given above where "emptiness" in one form of another is passed as arguments to a macro or returned from a macro, the examples I have given were created as simplified as possible to illustrate my points. In actual preprocessor metaprogramming, using Boost PP, where complicated logic is used to generate macro output based on the arguments to a macro, it might be useful to allow and work with empty data if one were able to test for the fact that data was indeed empty.
Currently Boost PP has an undocumented macro for testing whether a parameter is empty of not, written without the use of variadic macros. The macro is called BOOST_PP_IS_EMPTY. The macro is by its nature flawed, since there is no generalized way of determining whether or not a parameter is empty using the C++ preprocessor. But the macro will work given input limited in various ways or if the input is actually empty.
Paul Mensonides, the developer of Boost PP and the BOOST_PP_IS_EMPTY macro in that library, also wrote a better macro using variadic macros, for determining whether or not a parameter is empty or not, which he published on the Internet in response to a discussion about emptiness. This macro is also not perfect, since there is no perfect solution, but will work correctly with almost all input. I have adapted his code for the VMD and developed my own very slightly different code.
The one situation where the macro always does not work properly is if its input resolves to a function-like macro name or a sequence of preprocessor tokens ending with a function-like macro name and the function-like macro takes two or more parameters.
Here is a simple example:
#include <boost/vmd/is_empty.hpp> #define FMACRO(x,y) any_output BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(FMACRO) BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(some_input FMACRO)
In the first case the name of a function-like macro is being passed to BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY while in the second case a sequence of preprocessing tokens is being passed to BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY ending with the name of a function-like macro. The function-like macro also has two ( or more ) parameters. In both the cases above a compiler error will result from the use of BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY.
Please note that these two problematical cases are not the same as passing an invocation of a function-like macro name to BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY, as in
#include <boost/vmd/is_empty.hpp> BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(FMACRO(arg1,arg2)) BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(someinput FMACRO(arg1,arg2))
which always works correctly, unless of course a particular function-like macro invocation resolves to either of our two previous situations.
Another situation where the macro may not work properly is if the previously mentioned function-like macro takes a single parameter but creates an error when the argument passed is empty. An example of this would be:
#define FMACRO(x) BOOST_PP_CAT(+,x C);
When nothing is passed to FMACRO undefined behavior will occur.
So for a standard conforming compiler we have essentially a single corner case where the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY does not work and, when it does not work it, produces a compiler error rather than an incorrect result. Essentially what is desired for maximum safety is that we never pass input ending with the name of a function-like macro name when testing for emptiness.
The VC++ preprocessor is not a standard C++ conforming preprocessor in at least two relevant situations to our discussion of emptiness. These situations combine to create a single corner case which causes the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY macro to not work properly using VC++ when the input resolves to a function-like macro name.
The first situation is that if a macro taking 'n' number of parameters is invoked with 0 to 'n-1' parameters, the compiler does not give an error, but only a warning.
#define FMACRO(x,y) x + y FMACRO(1)
should give a compiler error, as it does when using a C++ standard-conforming compiler, but when invoked using VC++ it only gives a warning and VC++ continues macro substitution with 'y' as a placemarker preprocessing token. This non-standard conforming action actually eliminates the case where BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY does not work properly with a standard C++ conforming compiler. But of course it has the potential of producing incorrect output in other macro processing situations unrelated to the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY invocation, where a compiler error should occur.
A second general situation with VC++ situation, which affects the use of BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY, is that the expansion of a macro works incorrectly when the expanded macro is a function-like macro name followed by a function-like macro invocation, in which case the macro re-expansion is erroneously done more than once. This latter case can be seen by this example:
#define FMACRO1(parameter) FMACRO3 parameter() #define FMACRO2() () #define FMACRO3() 1 FMACRO1(FMACRO2) should expand to: FMACRO3() but in VC++ it expands to: 1
where after initially expanding the macro to:
VC++ erroneously rescans the sequence of preprocessing tokens more than once rather than rescan just one more time for more macro names.
What these two particular preprocessor flaws in the VC++ compiler mean is that although BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY does not fail with a compiler error in the same case as with a standard C++ conforming compiler given previously, it fails by giving the wrong result in another situation.
The failing situation is:
when the input to BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY resolves to only a function-like macro name, and the function-like macro, when passed a single empty argument, expands to a tuple, BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY will erroneously return 1 when using the Visual C++ compiler rather than either give a preprocessing error or return 0.
Here is an example of the failure:
#include <boost/vmd/is_empty.hpp> #define FMACRO4() ( any_number_of_tuple_elements ) #define FMACRO5(param) ( any_number_of_tuple_elements ) #define FMACRO6(param1,param2) ( any_number_of_tuple_elements ) BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(FMACRO4) // erroneously returns 1, instead of 0 BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(FMACRO5) // erroneously returns 1, instead of 0 BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY(FMACRO6) // erroneously returns 1, instead of generating a preprocessing error
As with a standard C++ conforming compiler, we have a rare corner case where the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY will not work properly, but unfortunately in this very similar but even rarer corner case with VC++, we will silently get an incorrect result rather than a compiler error.
I want to reiterate that there is no perfect solution in C++ to the detection of emptiness even for a C++ compiler whose preprocessor is completely conformant, which VC++ obviously is not.
With all of the above mentioned, the case(s) where BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY will work incorrectly are very small, even with the erroneous VC++ preprocessor, and I consider the macro worthwhile to use since it works correctly with the vast majority of possible preprocessor input.
The case where it will not work, with both a C++ standard conforming preprocessor or with Visual C++, occurs when he name of a function-like macro is part of the input to BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY. Obviously the macro should be used by the preprocessor metaprogrammer when the possible input to it is constrained to eliminate the erroneous case.
Furthermore, since emptiness can correctly be tested for in nearly every situation, the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY macro can be used internally when the preprocessor metaprogrammer wants to return data from a macro and all or part of that data could be empty.
Therefore I believe the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY macro is quite useful, despite the corner case flaw which makes it imperfect. Consequently I believe that the preprocessor metaprogrammer can use the concept of empty preprocessor data in the design of his own macros.
The macro BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY is used internally throughout VMD and macro programmers may find this macro useful in their own programming efforts despite the slight flaw in the way that it works.
You can use the general header file:
or you can use the individual header file:
for the BOOST_VMD_IS_EMPTY macro.
 For VC++ 8 the input is not variadic data but a single parameter