From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-06 14:35:26
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> At 15:23 2003-10-06, David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> I guess you could always use some exotic operator overloading to shorten
>>>> the getter functions.
>>>> p.value(name).get("unnamed") -> p[name | "unnamed"]
>>>> Or something like that, but I'm not sure I think the first version is too
>>>> verbose. :)
>>> Well, I think your syntax suggestion is beautiful! However, I think
>>> there may be some inmplementation difficulty. Can you implement it?
>>> There was a reason I went with the two-call .value(x).get(y) syntax.
>> Yes, here's an implementation that uses your value(x).get(y)
>> internally. I might have missed something that will break this, but
>> at least the tests work as expected.
> No, I think it works. My reason for that syntax was just to avoid
> return type deduction.
> So, is anyone else interested in this? Shall Daniel and I make it
> into a real library and request a review?
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net