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.
> 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
> 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 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