On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM, John Zwinck <jzwinck@athenacr.com> wrote:
OvermindDL1 wrote:
Instead of making a new function name, why not a function overload:
iterator erase(iterator it); // original void erase(iterator it, no_return); // no_return is an empty global created struct so you can just call m.erase(it, no_return);
Is "m.erase(it, no_return)" better than "m.erase_no_return(it)"?
Is there a precedent (in C++, not Boost) for this, other than the (IMO confusing) pre- vs. post-increment operator declarations?
I'm also concerned that people who bind C++ with dynamic languages may end up writing wrappers to make it a unary function again. This is a special case of the fact that a binary function may be a little more difficult to integrate into code which uses pointers to member functions.
I'm open to other opinions, but offhand I prefer a unary function.
As another post showed there is precedent. I find the no_return cleaner to read personally, and I would not be abject to having it as a template parameter either as a policy (m.erase<no_return>(it)) either, just seems and reads cleaner to me.