Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrei Alexandrescu \(See Website for Email\) (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-09 16:40:42

"Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On 7/7/04 12:08 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website for Email)"
> <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> >
> >> Well, it might.
> >>
> >> But then, the user knows he's using the initialization library, and
> >> operator, has a different meaning in that context, just like
> >> operator<< means something else in the context of a Spirit gramar.
> >
> > I see. So I'd like to make a quick poll for Boosters: Overloading the
> > operator in a way that could change order of evaluation of its arguments
> >
> > a) an obsolete coding standard
> > b) a valid coding standard
> > c) a valid coding standard, but for reasons x, y, and z, the
> > library doesn't violate it/violates it but gets away with it/etc.
> I don't understand what the extra descriptions in [c] mean. How does [c]
> differ from [b]?

[b] implies that the initialization library is in violation of that coding
standard. [c] implies that the initialization library has reasons that makes
it exempt from that coding standard.

> Also, the initial question is badly formed. It implies that there is a
> method of overloading the comma operator _without_ making argument
> evaluation order arbitrary. There isn't. (It's either using the built-in
> operator in list order, or an user-defined version in arbitrary order.)

There is: expression templates.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at