Boost logo

Boost :

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-13 10:36:46

On Saturday 13 April 2002 06:22 am, you wrote:
> Hello,
> 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
     :cond2? result2
     :cond3? result3
     :/*default/* default_result;

> 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.
> Cheers,
> --Joel


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at