Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Finally, I agree that Lars would carry all before him if he used
> | code like this.
>
> I am not quite sure what this sentence means, can you spell it out
> for me?
Nobody could possibly complain if you introduced code such as
return (to == lambda::_1.to());
The bind stuff is powerful, the code can be understand readily enough,
BUT you have to invest time and effort in piecing it all together.
Nested binds just reinforce this view.
Basically, I'm saying that if you introduce new idioms then you have
to convince the rest of us that your new idiom is better than what
exists. You might argue that nested binds are better than
arbitrarily-named functors. You might even win the argument. However,
the 'improvement' is not so obvious that the argument won't occur.
THAT is what I am trying to say.
> | The intent is transparent and it is the intent that I'm
> | interested in when reading through the code.
>
> that is of course also my goal. and a lot of intent is hidden in bad
> nameing. (match() anyone..., ok we are matching... but _what_. Just
> naming the functor EqualBranchNames() would make things a lot
> nicer.)
Agree whole-hearedly.
--
Angus
