Re: [boost] [local] Review (and resignation from review assistant)

Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Review (and resignation from review assistant)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-21 11:44:36

> > Ok, I am not sure if there are no better ways to write it in each
variant,
> > and I may be biased. I also didn't try to compile the examples. But it
> > should give the potential users an overview of options they have.
>
> Yep. This highlights the verbosity well:

>   for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), if_(empty(_1)) [_1 = "n/a"] );

> vs:

>   BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( std::string & n ) {
>     if( n.empty() ) n = "n/a";
>   }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_empties);
>   for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_empties );

Honestly, my goal was to show an example where Phoenix has limitations and
Local could be considered an attractive alternative. Obviously my example
failed to do that. I wanted to see how you can call member functions. I can
see Phoenix has nice support for container-like operations. But how about
changing the rules a bit, and calling an arbitrary member function?

  for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(),
    if_(bind(&SuperLib::SuperString::IsVulgar, arg1)) [arg1 = "unknown" ]
  );

vs.

  BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( SuperLib::SuperString & n ) {
    if( n.isVulgar() ) n = "unknown";
  }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_vulgar);

  for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_vulgar );

I realize that one can tweak examples to show whatever one wants. But
member access does not appear too unusual. This really happened to me that
I used a very complicated bind statement where I had to bind some variables
and leave some free, pass some by reference, some by value. I thought "it
was the right way because this is Boost way", until I realized no-one else
in the team knows what that is suppose to mean.

Regards,
&rzej