From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 09:58:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> However, Thorsten's prodding has made me wonder if we need || for the
> lazy case at all. It seems as though
> params.has(name) ? params[name] : something_else;
> is superior in every way except brevity. And there will be
> substantial cases where it's briefer as well, because there's no need
> to build a function object for something_else.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, I think you are. We want params[name] to be a compilation error if
there is no such parameter supplied by the user and no default. I don't
think the proposed construct can allow that.
IMO, a runtime error here is just not acceptable.
-- Daniel Wallin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk