Subject: Re: [boost] [QVM] Boost.QVM formal review is ongoing
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-17 14:10:58
Rainer, thank you for the thoughtful review! Just one comment below:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Rainer Deyke <rainerd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I also strongly feel that the comma operator should be replaced with
> function call syntax, i.e. X(v) instead of (v,X).
A friend of mine came up with the idea to implement swizzling and member
access as a function call syntax, then in a separate header define that
(v,XYZ) is equivalent to XYZ(v). This seems doable. Do you think that this
is a reasonable compromise?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk