Re: [boost] Re: any interest in a foreach looping construct?

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 
encapsulate them,
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
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>