From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-16 19:03:13
"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> I understand what you're saying, but I think "inline if" doesn't
>> reflect what it's doing and IIF is still not memnonic.
> It ultimately from (don't laugh) VB's version of the ternary
> operator--called "iif."
Ha har hee hee ha har hee hoo hahaha har hee hee ha har hee hoo hahaha
har hee hee ha har hee hoo haha har hee hee ha har hee hoo hahaha har
hee hee ha har hee hoo haha har hee hee ha har hee hoo hahaha har hee
hee ha har hee hoo haha har hee hee ha har hee hoo hahaha!
> It is not semantically exactly the same, but it is "similar" in the
> C++ inlining sense.
> For better or for worse, that is its name.
> Inversion? You'd just have to swap the 1 and 0: "expr ? 0 : 1" versus
> "expr ? 1 : 0".
Oh, OK. I don't care, really.
>> I have no problem with it, but I'd like to hear at least one more
>> opinion (other than Gennaro's) before we move forward with it. This
>> macro will be used in every Boost library, so if people find it
>> terribly odious it will be a failure.
> I'm not asserting that it should be done this way. Rather, I'm just
> saying that this (or something similar) is possible if that is what you
> It seems like a total overkill to me. The benefit does not pay for
> the implied complexity.
I sympathize with that POV.
> On the plus side, it is clever ;) and yields a clean syntax.
> However, I still think that the use of the pp-lib is fine and
> represents an acceptable dependency, but in this particular case,
> it's overdoing it--IMHO.
Yeah, it's kinda heavyweight. Since you and Gennaro agree, I think
I'll opt out unless someone argues strongly for it.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk