"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
It's easy to pack lots of stuff into few lines when you use a dense, illgegible coding style with really long lines of source and unaligned braces. Using our coding style it's 122 lines without namespaces, comments, include guards, or copyright notices.
I hoped to see not only comments on my coding style (which is BTW not that dense) but more technical one.
As long as you're counting lines of code, coding style is relevant.
Note though that even in your format it still 5 times smaller then gcc version of your code.
No doubt.
That is not true. version you refer to does produce compile time errors facing missing required parameter.
Oh, sorry, I must've missed that.
Anyone can throw together a less-capable prototype and come out with smaller code. I don't think it proves much. This is the first review I've seen where the focus on implementation details is so intense.
I hoped you would admit that differences in my approach are way beyond "implementation details" (though I do not really like the implementation either). I differ in (among other things):
1. parameter type enforcing
Check. You provide a simpler and less-capable interface. Of course it would be easy to add a simple and less-capable interface on top of our general one.
2. default value support
Details, please? Please show the differences (I've clearly lost track of this thread).
3. option parameter support
Details, please?
4. Unlimited number of parameters support
If I understand what you're saying, no you don't. Don't forget, we have the overloaded comma operator. If I don't understand what you're saying: details, please? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com