From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-09 09:38:31
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kanze" <kanze_at_[hidden]>
> IMHO, this is the biggest problem with . The graphics don't suggest
> anything. (This is also why I like the named function, with. With says
It seems to me that "with" is almost devoid of semantic value. Any f(a, b,
c) could be transformed into f.with(a).with(b).with(c) just as sensibly.
What does "with" suggest to you?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk