Andrew Sutton wrote:
> I suspect that CMake would be considerably less happy than they suggest if
> $ suddenly had meaning in C++ and they were forced to redesign their
> templating syntax.

$x or $(x) are not a problem for CMake; it uses ${x} (typically even turned
off with @ONLY) and this cannot occur in the hypothetical C++ dialect under
discussion.

Do not misinterpret this as support for $ though. :-) I don't know why we're
fixated on it; the paper suggests %x which isn't any worse, while avoiding
all these issues.