From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 11:33:49
Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
Duh, you're right.
> IMO, a runtime error here is just not acceptable.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk