|
Boost : |
From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-10 16:41:23
"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> > "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> > > From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> > I stole this idiom from John Maddock: http://tinyurl.com/4no5s. It's
supposed to
> > make insertion in the middle easier. I think it's the vector vs. list
tradeoff.
>
> It fails to make insertion in the middle easy, at least
> comparatively. Start with:
>
> Yours/John's Mine
> enum
> {
> name_a = 1, 1<<0,
> name_b = name_a << 1, 1<<1,
> name_c = name_b << 1 1<<2
> };
>
> Now add name_x after name_b:
>
> enum
> {
> name_a = 1, 1<<0,
> name_b = name_a << 1, 1<<1,
> name_x = name_b << 1, 1<<2,
> name_c = name_x << 1 1<<3
> };
>
> Your version requires a more extensive change
True -- if there are only three enumerators!
> due to the use of
> the enumerator name and makes it harder to determine if the new
> order is, in fact, sequential.
Also true.
Best Regards,
Jonathan
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk