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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk