Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-21 15:35:51

> It's easy to pack lots of stuff into few lines when you use a dense,
> illgegible coding style with really long lines of source and unaligned
> braces. Using our coding style it's 122 lines without namespaces,
> comments, include guards, or copyright notices.

I hoped to see not only comments on my coding style (which is BTW not that
dense) but more technical one.
Note though that even in your format it still 5 times smaller then gcc
version of your code.

> Not to mention which
> it sacrifices compile-time type safety for runtime checks.

That is not true. version you refer to does produce compile time errors
facing missing required parameter.

> Anyone can throw together a less-capable prototype and come out with
> smaller code. I don't think it proves much. This is the first review
> I've seen where the focus on implementation details is so intense.

I hoped you would admit that differences in my approach are way beyond
"implementation details" (though I do not really like the implementation
either). I differ in (among other things):

1. parameter type enforcing
2. default value support
3. option parameter support
4. Unlimited number of parameters support

 IOW in most major design decisions.

> --
> Dave Abrahams



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