Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-21 22:21:58

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 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.

As long as you're counting lines of code, coding style is relevant.

> Note though that even in your format it still 5 times smaller then gcc
> version of your code.

No doubt.

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

Oh, sorry, I must've missed that.

>> 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

Check. You provide a simpler and less-capable interface. Of course
it would be easy to add a simple and less-capable interface on top of
our general one.

> 2. default value support

Details, please? Please show the differences (I've clearly lost track
of this thread).

> 3. option parameter support

Details, please?

> 4. Unlimited number of parameters support

If I understand what you're saying, no you don't. Don't forget, we
have the overloaded comma operator.

If I don't understand what you're saying: details, please?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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