Jan Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >>> 1) Instead of "operator bool", use the unspecified-bool-type discussed >>>elsewhere on this list; it's safer. >> Yup. > > ok, i changed it. > >>> 2) I'm not sure that the choice of the name is ideal. OTOH, I can't think >>>of a better one... >> lexicographic? > > i dont bother about the name. if this is better i will change it.
I don't really like it, FWIW. >>> 3) I'd like to see a general solution for this problem using real >>>(late-bound) function objects as well, if you know what I mean. This would >>>be a lot harder, though, so maybe it should be put on a wish-list. Have you >>>given any thought to this approach? >> return compare.less(p1.x, p2.x) >> .greater(p1.y, p2.y) >> .call(f, p1.z, p2.z); > > now this would be: > > return compare (p1.x, p2.x, std::less <double> ()) > (p1.y, p2.y, std::greater <double> ()) > (p1.z, p2.z, f); The problem with that is that it requires you to name the type of the arguments (and they have to be the same). > or nearly the same: > > return compare (p1.x, p2.x) > (p2.y, p1.y) > (p1.z, p2.z, f); Maybe that's better. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
