macrofun

I wrote this large reply to a sibling comment on the whole practicality argument against copyleft licenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353 The popularity of a project, derived or not, is not relevant. By that measure, FreeBSD is running on 10% of desktop computers, and it's better off because of that? I don't think so. FreeBSD has its merits, and I think it's a cool project, but the popularity of its derivations has nothing to do with its quality. I can understand the legal-freedom angle of non-copyleft. I really can. I released Macrofun [0] under the MIT license, because it's not actually useful, and so I didn't care what people did with it. I later released a similar, useful project, Libpp [1], under the AGPL. I think we just differ on ideology. Like I said, I believe that nonfree software is harmful [2], so I don't want t

I released Macrofun [0] a few weeks ago, which provides similar macros, but does not conform to standards. A commenter on my submission to /r/programming [1] pointed out the related `P99_FOR` macro of P99 [2], which handles "variable" number of arguments while conforming to standards. Libpp's macros are implemented in a fashion similar to `P99_FOR`, but I think it's much cleaner. For example, `P99_FOR`'s handler macros are defined within a 10,000 line header file [3], and `P00_FOR_50` calls `P00_FOR_49`, so you're going to require as many preprocessor evaluations as arguments given. By contrast, `PP_MAP` is defined within a 300-line header file, and `PP_MAP_50` evaluates directly to the desired expression. You can also change the argument limit of Libpp's macros to your liking, as detailed in the readme. Libpp isn't as powerful or general