Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>>
>> | that is of course also my goal. and a lot of intent is hidden in
>> | bad nameing. (match() anyone..., ok we are matching... but _what_.
>> | Just naming the functor EqualBranchNames() would make things a lot
>> | nicer.)
>>
>> Did you see there there were two functors I removed in the patch for
>> this specific thing?
>>
>> SameName
>> match
>
| No.
>
| Look, I understand why you want to introduce this patch and I agree
| fully with your reasons.
As it is now: now I don't.
(parts of it: yes, but not all of it.)
| However, I disagree with you when you say
| that the resulting code is easy to read. Christian's arguments ring
| true to me too --- code should not rely on formatting to be
| understandable.
OTOH formatting has always been paramount to
understanding/readability:
if (complex stuff) complexline; else complexline;
will also require indending and formatting to be readable.
| return bind(logical_and<bool>(),
| bind(equal_to<string>(),
| bind(&Converter::from, _1),
| from),
| bind(equal_to<string>(),
| bind(&Converter::to, _1),
| to));
| is well chosen.
Certainly.
>
| My question is whether we can avoid these arbitrarily-named functors
| and have code which is understandable at-a-glance. If the code above
| could be replaced with
| return (from == lambda::_1.from() && to == lambda::_2.to());
| then I'd be very happy indeed.
Are you really ready for lambda?
(and labmda has harsher compiler requirements than function/bind)
--
Lgb
