Subject: Re: [proto] Visitor Design Pattern
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-23 14:18:09
On Saturday 23 October 2010 19:47:59 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 October 2010 19:30:18 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2010 10:12 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> >>> I've tweaked both the traversal example you sent around as well as my
> >>> over toy Phoenix. Tell me what you guys think.
> >> Actually, I think it's better to leave the definition of "some_rule"
> >> alone and wrap it in "named_rule" at the point of use. A bit cleaner.
> >> See attached.
> > I like that.
> > With that named_rule approach, we have some kind of in code
> > documentation: Look, here that rule is a customization point.
> > Why not just rule? Less characters to type.
> I almost called it "rule", but *everything* in Proto is a rule including
> proto::or_ and proto::switch_. What makes these rules special is that
> they have a name.
True. But you could look at proto::or_ and proto::switch_ or any other
already exisiting rules as anonymous rules. While rule or named_rule
explicitly name them.
Proto list run by eric at boostpro.com