From: Jake Voytko (jakevoytko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-13 10:44:15
I had not known about Boost.Parameter, and I feel that it can help my
project out tremendously. However, I'm not ready to give up on the stream
interface just yet. I feel that at a glance, it allows the programmer to
make a few (correct) inferences about how the program works without ever
looking at docs.
1) It gives the feel that something is being written
2) It implies that there is chaining
This is also my own opinion, but I feel that code written using the stream
operator also *looks* cleaner than a monolithic constructor call or style
call to take care of all styling (including background color/border, title
size/color/position, legend background/border/text size/position, main plot
background/border color and size /plot colors / etc)before anything is
I absolutely see the value of having the following syntax:
my_plot << plot_range(data.begin(), data.end(), line_thickness=3,
and I will certainly consider ways to incorporate this into my design.
On 6/13/07, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Jake Voytko a écrit :
> > For those who have put time or energy into making suggestions for the
> > SVG_Plot program, an update (with pretty pictures!) is on the wiki:
> > http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/soc/2007/VisualizationOfContainers
> > Feedback / use cases welcome ;).
> I don't like the iostreams-like interface so much.
> Wouldn't boost.parameter be cleaner?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk