Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Comments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-16 15:19:02
On 03/16/2010 09:44 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> This specialization is bad if it forces you to have separate attrs.
>> From their implementation standpoint, they have nearly nothing in common.
> Then all the sophisticated implementation doesn't belong in attr.
> It belongs in the whole formatter/filter object.
>> You mean, like this:
>> bind(begins_with, bind(attr< std::string >("Tag"), _1)), "Important")
>> Compared to my syntax, this looks cryptic, to say the least.
> No I meant, begins_with(attr<std::string>("Tag"), "Important").
> I don't understand why you think that random extra stuff
> is needed just because a member function is turned into
> a non-member. FWIW, the bind syntax would mostly work as is with
> no extra work from you, if attr just returned a function object,
> so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, since I really do not
> like to see you reinventing the wheel in so many places.
I understand where you're leading - to rewrite filters and formatters in
terms of Proto or Phoenix. I admit that you made a few very good points,
and I'm not against this move. But I'm not ready to drop my syntax
advantages in the process. Ideally, I would prefer that the current
syntax was possible without changes in the rewritten code. In order to
complete this task I'll need time to study these libraries closer.
>>> Have you measured the effect? Oh, I see what you mean. I
>>> would have no problem if you dropped the format parameter
>>> of attr entirely.
>> But I don't want to drop it. It's quite useful.
> You can already use Boost.Format at the top level.
This feature is useful in streaming formatters.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk