Re: [Boost-users] [fusion] .at<N>() template member in containers?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [fusion] .at<N>() template member in containers?
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-08 09:23:57

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 07 October 2010, OvermindDL1 wrote:
> To be frank, you should *never* have any function be a member function
> unless it absolutely cannot be created externally, you will have
> better compile times, better encapsulation, 

In the case he's talking about (similar to Boost.Tuple get()), a template 
parameter has to be specified for the function, which means ADL won't work, 
so you have to fully qualify a free function call (or use "using").  What's 
less annoying to use?

boost::tuples::tuple tup;

tup.get<1>();

or

boost::tuples::get<1>(tup);

> and it prevents you from 
> doing nice things like the above.

And of course, adding a member function doesn't prevent anything, it's not an 
either-or question.  For example, having member swap() methods doesn't 
prevent a free-function swap() from existing. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyvG24ACgkQ5vihyNWuA4URbgCgrVSiuhQK+aMudVw+HJEJkNR/
A68AoLhYY3Df/cBz45AKhC2BBgL3GpvD
=Iezo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----