Re: [boost] [qvm] Terseness of syntax etc.

Subject: Re: [boost] [qvm] Terseness of syntax etc.
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-10 02:45:06

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Le 10/12/2015 00:58, Emil Dotchevski a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
>> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Isn't
>>>
>>>      qvm::ref(v).XY()
>>>
>>> terse enough?
>>>
>>> Compared to (v,XY)?
>>
> The best is the enemy of the good.
>
> I requested if it is not terse enough.
>

This problem does not have a good solution in C++, any chosen operator has
drawbacks. That said, I wouldn't support ref(v).X() for accessing the X
element of a vector, or ref(v).XY() for swizzling.

Emil