|
|
Boost : |
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
> something.)
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?
-Dave
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk