On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 20:59:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 4/15/15 4:51 PM, Messenger wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 19:09:42 UTC, Márcio Martins
wrote:
Hi!
I use Appender a lot, and find it ugly to write this all the
time to
efficiently construct strings:
app.put("foo");
app.put(var);
app.put("bar");
Sidetracking a bit, but when I started using Appender I was
surprised to
see that put didn't return a reference to the Appender itself.
Had it
done so, you could have chained your put calls very nicely.
app.put("foo")
.put(var)
.put("bar")
.put(more)
.put("stuff");
You can naturally write a small wrapper function that does
this for you,
but it still strikes me as odd. Sadly I imagine changing the
return type
would make the function signature mangle differently, breaking
ABI
compatibility.
with(app)
{
put(var);
put("bar");
put(more);
put("stuff");
}
-Steve
With all the excitement about chaining and ufcs, the with
statement is often overlooked.