Date: 2001-05-31 10:45:11
--- In boost_at_y..., "joel de guzman" <isis-tech_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "Douglas Gregor"
> > Doug
> If we did it George Heintzelman's way, |= instead of = for new
> we don't have to pay for the feature if we don't use it. The penalty
> added code to the = operator. If we let that as is (no redefines)
> use the |= for new productions (alternatives), then we have a
> situation: no penalty if the feature is not used and clarity in the
> a = b;
> a |= c;
> a |= d;
> if (flag) a |= e;
Someone seeing |= might think >>= is also defined. Should
this also be provided? Then what about &=?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk