On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> wrote:
template<typename V> V clamp ( V val, V lo, V hi );
I have a clamp function that orders the args low - middle - high, which seems like a more natural ordering to me. Is there some rationale or precedent for this middle - low - high ordering? I think the confusion
lo and hi will often be short literals, while val might be longer. Having lo and hi close together seems like a good idea. If val is really long, it might even be better to have lo and hi before val, as is sometimes seen with (if X == f()) where X is a constant.
I note that this function takes its args by value, while std::min & max take const references. What is the rationale for this?
Probably just an oversight.
compile, and (b) conversions from const char* to std::string will only happen when necessary, not unconditionally for all of the arguments.
I guess that depends on the optimizer. I've been wondering, are compilers good enough nowadays to construct std::string from string literals at compile-time? On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:04 AM, John Bytheway <jbytheway+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it does buy you something. std::less defines a total ordering on pointers, operator< need not. (See N3290 [comparisons] 20.8.5 p8)
I'm not sure clamping pointers is a good idea. Olaf