From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 11:34:32
Doug Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Nov 18, 2004, at 9:38 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> One possible alternative is
>> but I find that highly illogical to read, because the specification
>> of the default precedes the keyword it's defaulting.
>> 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?
> "something_else" still has to compile, whereas with "||
> something_lazy", "something_lazy()" does not have to compile.
That too. Okay, I was missing a lot. That's what happens when
there's a long gap between initial design and the review.
-- 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