Dave Harris wrote:
Comparing:
BOOST_FOREACH( int i, vec ) cout << i;
with:
for (iterator i = vec.begin(); i != vec.end(); ++i) cout << *i;
the macro just doesn't seem worth it.
In fairness, it's for (vector<ArbitrarilyComplexType>::iterator i = vec.begin(); i != vec.end(); ++i) cout << *i; And add to that that for is more general (in potentially harmful ways) because the iterator can be freely modified inside the loop. Often, that's not what you wanna. I don't like macros myself (ack! chaos! nooooo!...), but IMHO it's unfair to label FOREACH as macro-heavy machinery. The macro is but one layer behind which there's good non-macro stuff. I think the part of the discussion that focuses on arguments for or against macros is misplaced. We should ask ourselves about abstraction. That's the good thing. Does BOOST_FOREACH offer a good abstraction? Dave Harris says it's not enough, and I think that's the proper focus of discussion. (As a contrast, think of the boost initialization library. I doesn't use macros but I consider it way more dangerous, less useful, and offering less of an abstraction.) I think BOOST_FOREACH does offer a good, useful abstraction, that the disadvantages ot it using a macro are assuaged by good handling of macro-related problems and good taste in design, so if I have voting power around here, I'd vote for :o). Andrei