From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 18:35:03
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> It sure would've been nice to be able to write _2.count, or
>> count(_2), or _2.count(), but we can't, so we bind(). ;-) The
>> regular syntax has its advantages, and the initial "member pointer
>> first" surprise is a one-time adjustment.
> It's an issue of how far the language is, mentally, from the domain
> abstraction it represents.
> maps more directly to
> does. For me.
Yep, but you are optimizing the rare "public member" case. Are you going to
introduce new syntax for count(_2) and _2.count() as well?
That's the regularity I spoke of.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk