U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Re: NEW: generic Toupel grouper [message #28092 is a reply to message #28091]

Sun, 15 August 2010 13:09

dolik.rce
Messages: 1791
Registered: August 2008
Location: Czech Republic

Ultimate Contributor

Hi Kohait

kohait00 wrote on Sun, 15 August 2010 09:16

dont worry, it's part of development, and didnt feel criticised Smile

. i am always looking forward to meeting better ideas..

I don't worry, it was a joke Wink

kohait00 wrote on Sun, 15 August 2010 09:16

the Get<1>() option (idea from boost?) is a cool trick, but IMHO of little use because it's not a runtime check, but a compile time definition, thus u.a, u.b, u.c is much simpler and clearer in that sense, and less to type anyway. i mean, in terms of compile time specialisation u.Get<1> is same as u.a, you have to provide the index at compiletime, so you know which type.

Yes, it is from boost. As I said, it is mostly useless and the only way it might be helpful is making the code look better and hopefully better readable. But I don't insist on having it at all. At least it learned me some interesting new things about templates Smile

kohait00 wrote on Sun, 15 August 2010 09:16

the Value operator[](int i) is a good idea though. to wrap / unwrap in value (boxing / unboxing is used in C# and others, though there in different context, as base class object).

Don't forget about the GetCount() too Wink

I just don't like my implementation of it very much, but I can't come up with anything better. And if possible I would also like to see Begin() and End() implemented, so I could do DUMPC(touple)...

kohait00 wrote on Sun, 15 August 2010 09:16

having Duo, Trio, etc is, as you pointed out, more or less useless, even if it's better to read Smile

so i added a 5th T and deaulted past second T. (i'd rater use EmptyClass, but there is no Value(const EmptyClass &) for it, so i used Nuller. might be usefull to have an EmptyClass Value as well?)

I would strongly prefer EmptyClass too. But there might be idealogical problem: Once you make it value compatible, it won't be empty any more Smile

Maybe we should do a special class for this purpose, let's say DummyElement, which would be Value and Null compatible.

Apart from what I said above, especially the missing GetCount(), your last code seems reasonable. Definitely not that difficult to read as mine Smile

(which is good)

Honza

[Updated on: Sun, 15 August 2010 13:10]

Report message to a moderator