From: John Fuller (jfuller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 17:07:37
Personally I have a bias against macros because you can't really
literal substitution is kind of scary, and the resulting all-caps code
is a bit of a shock to the eyes.
And I sure wished transform was supported when I first tried compiling
under msvc6. :)
(Couldn't help myself)
On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 04:27 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> Brian McNamara wrote:
>> accepting something like this opens the door to other
>> container-facades, like
>> BOOST_TRANSFORM( int_list, f )
>> // means std::transform( int_list.begin(), int_list.end(), f )
>> and it's unclear to me that this is a road I want to go down.
>> So, I dunno. I'm mildly in favor of it, but I don't like the idea of
>> it setting a precedent.
> I don't think it would be setting a precedent. I see this as filling a
> hole in the language. Other languages have foreach looping constructs,
> and C++ is often criticised for the lack of one. Many new C++
> programmers ask for foreach (See the "D vs. C++" and "anonymous
> blocks" threads on c.l.c++.m, for example). Nobody asks for a
> "transform" keyword -- it's not an important enough concept.
> Eric Niebler
> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk