From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-07 01:13:52
on Wed Aug 06 2008, Andrew Sutton <asutton-AT-cs.kent.edu> wrote:
>> I was wondering why put_get_helper shouldn't be three structs
>> get_helper, put_get_helper, with the latter deriving from from the
>> instead of one? My rationale is outlined below along with the
>> proposed code.
> The put_get_helper is just something used internally to abbreviate the
> construction of lots of different property maps. However, building
> property maps is pretty trivial: it's just a structure with 1-3
> operations and a couple of free functions. I don't really see the
> need for an expanded framework to help build them.
> You might also consider that the BGL is fairly dated and stagnant, and
> in need of some serious TLC. Whether or not property maps continue to
> exist in the same form in future renditions of the library is
> anybody's guess - I'm leaning towards "no".
Hm, and what do you propose as an alternative? I can't see how we could
do without them.
I might like some trivial syntactic changes
get(m, k) ==> m(k)
put(m, k, v) ==> m(k,v)
but that's about it.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
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