Andy Little wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote
What about nested invocations for BOOST_FOREACH:
int a[100][200]; int sum = 0;
BOOST_FOREACH(int (&x)[200], a) BOOST_FOREACH(int i, x) sum += i;
?
Its a fair point but just as possible the other way:
FOR_EACH(a){ BOOST_AUTO(& x, *_); // or int (&x)[200] = *_; FOR_EACH(x) sum += *_; }
Andy, I think you are arguing for a design which is untenable. I would not accept a dependency on BOOST_AUTO, and I would not require users to register types and iterators with Boost.Typeof in order to use BOOST_FOREACH. You're trying to make BOOST_FOREACH easier to use, and I appreciate that, but an anology about babies and bathwater seems appropriate here. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com