From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-02 14:35:38
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J
> We both have the same intent of improving programming practices through
> library development. The way people code geometry typically looks like:
> point.x() = value;
> point.y() = value;
> You are advocating a style:
> point.get<0>() = value;
> point.get<1>() = value;
> and I am advocating:
> point.get(condition) = value;
I don't think Joel, Steven, myself, or anyone else suggesting
compile-time indexing is advocating that.
If the user's style is to use .x() and .y(), then he can do so. If he
wants to use run-time indexing, then he can do so. But when the user
decides to use a library function like contains(), the contains()
implementation will rely on compile-time indexing only.
We are not advocating a particular point type, only advocating that
the algorithm implementations be generic and require the minimal
concept needed for correctness.