Re: [boost] Re: Pretty Good Initialization Library

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 14:45:05

In-Reply-To: <cch4as$941$1_at_[hidden]>
andrewalex_at_[hidden] (Andrei Alexandrescu \(See Website for Email\)) 
wrote (abridged):
> I was worried more (only) about the order of evaluation.
>
> v += foo(), bar();

I don't think order of evaluation is sacred. However, I am also not keen 
on using comma for this. I'd rather use operator<<().

    v << foo() << bar();

This is partly because comma is so small its easy to overlook, partly 
because it is used for so many other common things, and partly because I 
think the semantics of operator<<() fit better here. "Append these items 
to that stream or container, with conversion or formatting if 
appropriate."

I would also be happy with:
    v << repeat(5) << 4;

meaning:
    v << 4 << 4 << 4 << 4 << 4;

and so forth. It doesn't bother me that:
    v = 1, 2, 3;

has no direct equivalent. It becomes:
    v.clear();
    v << 1 << 2 << 3;

Presumably you'd be content with operator<<() in that it doesn't imply an 
order of evaluation.

-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK