21 May
2007
21 May
'07
9:47 p.m.
Eric Niebler wrote:
I thought about that, and it's not unreasonable, either. It might cause less confusion. However, the different or_'s will often be used together, making qualification a requirement. Compare the following (assumes using namespace proto;):
struct MyGrammar : control::or_< operators::or_<_,_> , operators::bitor_<_,_> > {};
to
struct MyGrammar : or_< logical_or<_,_> , bitwise_or<_,_> > {};
I don't mind having it the first way. Explicit is always better than implicit. If that's too longish somebody could always use a using namespace specification for whatever variant it may fit... My main concern is name compatibility to mpl. Regards Hartmut