From: Ross MacGregor (ross__macgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-23 03:51:32
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> we're trying to guard our selves from a algorithm explosion problem.
I see your point. Now that I look at the chaining aspect, I don't see a
great need for it anyway.
What I understand is that the original inplace algorithms returned a
reference so that something like this would be possible:
A) func( trim(to_upper(s)) );
This saves space and is elegant but it is also a little ambiguous too
(is s modified?). This can lead to unpleasant side effects, so an
explicit variant is being considered:
B) func( trim_inplace(to_upper_inplace(s)) );
This is a much less ambiguous operation, but I think I would be just as
happy learning the single inplace set and writing the operation as:
Did I miss a more important aspect of chaining?
> As for the chaining, then maybe we need some device that allows of to
> function operation on eachother's result:
> string s:
> chain( &trim, &to_upper, s );
Then I could write my little code snippit as:
chain( &trim, &to_upper, s );
Correct? This would perhaps be less error prone without the duplicate
prameters, but I don't find it easier to read.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk