Re: [boost] [local] Review (and resignation from review assistant)
Ok, I am not sure if there are no better ways to write it in each variant, and I may be biased. I also didn't try to compile the examples. But it should give the potential users an overview of options they have.
Yep. This highlights the verbosity well:
for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), if_(empty(_1)) [_1 = "n/a"] );
vs:
BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( std::string & n ) { if( n.empty() ) n = "n/a"; }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_empties); for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_empties );
Honestly, my goal was to show an example where Phoenix has limitations and Local could be considered an attractive alternative. Obviously my example failed to do that. I wanted to see how you can call member functions. I can see Phoenix has nice support for container-like operations. But how about changing the rules a bit, and calling an arbitrary member function? for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), if_(bind(&SuperLib::SuperString::IsVulgar, arg1)) [arg1 = "unknown" ] ); vs. BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( SuperLib::SuperString & n ) { if( n.isVulgar() ) n = "unknown"; }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_vulgar); for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_vulgar ); I realize that one can tweak examples to show whatever one wants. But member access does not appear too unusual. This really happened to me that I used a very complicated bind statement where I had to bind some variables and leave some free, pass some by reference, some by value. I thought "it was the right way because this is Boost way", until I realized no-one else in the team knows what that is suppose to mean. Regards, &rzej
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, I am not sure if there are no better ways to write it in each variant, and I may be biased. I also didn't try to compile the examples. But it should give the potential users an overview of options they have.
Yep. This highlights the verbosity well:
for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), if_(empty(_1)) [_1 = "n/a"] );
vs:
BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( std::string & n ) { if( n.empty() ) n = "n/a"; }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_empties); for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_empties );
Honestly, my goal was to show an example where Phoenix has limitations and Local could be considered an attractive alternative. Obviously my example failed to do that. I wanted to see how you can call member functions. I can see Phoenix has nice support for container-like operations. But how about changing the rules a bit, and calling an arbitrary member function?
for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), if_(bind(&SuperLib::SuperString::IsVulgar, arg1)) [arg1 = "unknown" ] );
I understand your goal and thank you. However, I honestly prefer to keep the Local docs more "neutral". While the docs list all the features of the different alternatives: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost_loca... I wouldn't want to show examples that directly discourage one alternative over another. I'd rather leave that judgment entirely up to the library users (and the specific of their problem domain).
vs.
BOOST_CLOSURE_PARAMS( SuperLib::SuperString & n ) { if( n.isVulgar() ) n = "unknown"; }BOOST_CLOSURE_NAME(replace_vulgar);
for_each( vec.begin(), vec.end(), replace_vulgar );
I realize that one can tweak examples to show whatever one wants. But member access does not appear too unusual. This really happened to me that I used a very complicated bind statement where I had to bind some variables and leave some free, pass some by reference, some by value. I thought "it was the right way because this is Boost way", until I realized no-one else in the team knows what that is suppose to mean.
Thanks again, --Lorenzo
participants (2)
-
Andrzej Krzemienski -
Lorenzo Caminiti