From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-13 10:36:46
On Saturday 13 April 2002 06:22 am, you wrote:
> This is nice Doug. I really like your hidden agenda. Just 2 questions:
> 1) Well, the <|> operator is nice, but wouldn't the <,> operator
> be more C++ like? Either way, it's nice.
I've been preexposed to the Ocaml syntax, so I think '|' looks nicer. I even
format cascading uses of the ternary operation the same way:
x = cond1? result1
> 2) If LL moves on to switch_(expr)[...] syntax, which I think will happen,
> might there be an ambiguity? What sub-namespace will this switch on
> variant type be in? variant::switch_(v) ?
I fully expect it to conflict, unfortunately, and the switch-on-type should
probably use something like tswitch/tcase.
> Kudos! I wish for something like this a lot.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk