On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Koen Deforche <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > 2009/12/28 OvermindDL1 <[email protected]>: >> What would you think of a "filter" member for collections, and more. >> Say you have this: > > Yes! This is something that came to my mind while making the blog > example too, to be able to make a Query object based on a collection, > but which I postponed since I could not decide how to deal with bound > parameters. > > Currently the parameter binding is now a bit too simple: the bindings > are passed on directly to the prepared statement, which is excellent > for performance, but bad for new features like these. The alternative > is to keep a list of bound variables (which will need its share of > polymorphism to deal with the different types). But I believe this is > a decision we will need to take in favor of enabling new features.
Actually if you used Boost.Phoenix (with perhaps a dabbling of Boost.Fusion), that would simplify a *lot* of the work and allow it to be expanded rather arbitrarily. I know both of those libraries very well if you could use any help (although if I got a hold of Wt.Dbo for a few days, you would not recognize it after that...). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
