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

Subject: Re: [boost] [qvm] Terseness of syntax etc.
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-10 13:10:51

Le 10/12/2015 08:45, Emil Dotchevski a écrit :
> 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.
>
>
Why?

Vicente