From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-17 10:46:08
John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> In the docs for lambda, at a point, Joel de Guzmann suggested a better
> syntax for control structures, namely:
> for_(init, condition, increment)[body]
> I strongly prefer this, but the same could be done for switch_statement,
> which is pretty huge otherwise:
> What do you think?
Not possible. case_<label1>[lambda_expression] is a
Phoenix-2 will have:
This was already discussed at great lengths but somehow, the implementation
fell through the cracks. Spirit is already using this syntax since Hartmut Kaiser
implemented the switch_p deterministic parsers.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk