Re: [boost] [Boost.Breakable] Any interest in a Boost Breakable library?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Breakable] Any interest in a Boost Breakable library?
From: Pierre Morcello (pmorcell-cppfrance_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 17:30:42

At Stewart Roberts, about "embedded if else" vs "Breakable idiom".

(I answer in a separated mail, because this may also interest other people, more than the previous one).

2

3

4

5 The "test", "fail case" and the "ok case" looks more contiguous. These are not
separated by the other tests or the "}else{". There are less "visuals parasite" between them.

6

Also, compared to the expanded version (for(bool executed=false;
executed!=true; executed =true) or do{...}while(false), the 'Breakable macro'
tells why it is here : it suppresses doubts. I suppose most of my
coworker would ask me why there is a "do{...}while(false)" in some code, while on
the contrary, it took them no pain to understand the use and the meaning (when they read it in someone else code) of the macro.

Thanks for your time,