Re: [boost] Re: Small tuple extension

From: Giovanni P. Deretta (lordshoo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 18:06:42

Larry Evans wrote:
> On 04/26/2005 05:22 PM, Giovanni P. Deretta wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>> Agreed, but the indexed get works just as well when the argument is
>>> an enumerator instead of a literal unsigned, and when it's an
>>> enumerator, the meaning is clearer:
>>>
>>>     t.get<0>();
>>>     t.get<1>();
>>>
>>> is obviously not as clear as:
>>>
>>>     t.get<first_field>();
>>>     t.get<second_field>();
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, i actually believe the first to be clearer.  It is a matter of 
>> taste though.
> 
> 
> I hope you didn't misinterpret what I was saying.  I used 'first_field'
> and 'second_field' to emphasize the use of names instead of numbers.
> In a real application, the names would, of course, indicate the type of 
> relationship.  E.g. in an employee record, the enumerators would be:
> 
>      enum
>    employee_fields
>    { name
>    , salary
>    , title
>    };
> 

Actually I did :-)
In that paragraph i was talking about homogeneous tuples and i thought 
you were too in your answer.
It is much more clearer now.

> which, I hope you'll agree would make the meaning of:
> 
>    a_employee.get<name>();
>    a_employee.get<salary>();
> 
> clearer than:
> 
>    a_employee.get<0>();
>    a_employee.get<1>();
> 

Yes, certanly.

--
Giovanni P. Deretta