From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 11:37:40
"Eric Niebler" wrote:
>> BOOST_FOR_EACH ...
>> Is there a compelling reason to omit the second underline?
> I don't think there's a /compelling/ reason, but here's my thought
> * This isn't an algorithm, so I don't want to evoke std::for_each.
> * It's like a new keyword, and some other languages have "foreach" as a
> Anyway, I'm not married to the name, and I'd gladly change it if people
> preferred to type an extra underscore. :-)
I'd rather like to know whether I can do a
#define FOREACH(...) BOOST_FOREACH(...)
in my code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk