[boost] Re: Small tuple extension

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 17:34:53

On 04/26/2005 05:22 PM, Giovanni P. Deretta wrote:
[snip]
>> Agreed, but the indexed get works just as well when the argument is
>> an enumerator instead of a literal unsigned, and when it's an
>> enumerator, the meaning is clearer:
>>
>>     t.get<0>();
>>     t.get<1>();
>>
>> is obviously not as clear as:
>>
>>     t.get<first_field>();
>>     t.get<second_field>();
>>
>> [snip]
> 
> 
> Well, i actually believe the first to be clearer.  It is a matter of 
> taste though.

I hope you didn't misinterpret what I was saying.  I used 'first_field'
and 'second_field' to emphasize the use of names instead of numbers.
In a real application, the names would, of course, indicate the type of 
relationship.  E.g. in an employee record, the enumerators would be:

      enum
    employee_fields
    { name
    , salary
    , title
    };

which, I hope you'll agree would make the meaning of:

    a_employee.get<name>();
    a_employee.get<salary>();

clearer than:

    a_employee.get<0>();
    a_employee.get<1>();