|
Boost : |
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-08 08:27:06
>> The concepts don't really change either. There can still
>> a read, write, and lvalue concepts. They just appear as:
>>
>> m(k) // read
>> m(k, x) // write
>> m(k) = x // lvalue
>
> Personally I don't think there should be an lvalue concept. Is there
> really an algorithm that requires it?
I was actually wondering the same thing as I wrote that. I don't
think there are any algorithms that use it, and I can't think of any
use cases where lvalue access is required beyond the usual get/put
operations. Maybe the lvalue concept can go away until somebody comes
up with a really good use for it.
> OK, but that's certainly not "property maps continue to exist in the
> same form...." Ugh, now that I copied your words out, I realize you
> said "the same" and not "some," which changes everything. Sorry
> for the
> noise.
My original phrasing was poorly worded. I can certainly see where it
seems like I don't like property maps.
Andrew Sutton
asutton_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk