Richard Dingwall wrote:
On 7/26/07, *Graham Reitz* <graham.cpp@gmail.com <mailto:graham.cpp@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ok good. So it sounds like my concern isn't justified.
To be certain. Because of tuples I prefer this:
typedef boost::tuples::tuple<unsigned int, double> some_pair; typedef std::vector<some_pair > some_pairs;
to this: struct some_pair { unsigned int i; double d; }; typedef std::vector<some_pair > some_pairs;
Is tuples meant to be used like the first example?
Pardon me if it's just a two-dimensional example for simplicity, but why not use std::pair?
The op's intent is to use tuple instead of struct: "in situations where I might use a struct I am tend to prefer a tuple". std::pair is ok if the struct to be replaced has 2 elements. This is not always the case. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net