From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 14:45:05
andrewalex_at_[hidden] (Andrei Alexandrescu \(See Website for Email\))
> I was worried more (only) about the order of evaluation.
> v += foo(), bar();
I don't think order of evaluation is sacred. However, I am also not keen
on using comma for this. I'd rather use operator<<().
v << foo() << bar();
This is partly because comma is so small its easy to overlook, partly
because it is used for so many other common things, and partly because I
think the semantics of operator<<() fit better here. "Append these items
to that stream or container, with conversion or formatting if
I would also be happy with:
v << repeat(5) << 4;
v << 4 << 4 << 4 << 4 << 4;
and so forth. It doesn't bother me that:
v = 1, 2, 3;
has no direct equivalent. It becomes:
v << 1 << 2 << 3;
Presumably you'd be content with operator<<() in that it doesn't imply an
order of evaluation.
-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk