Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> >> Where is the obfuscation?
>
| I found
>
| list.remove_if(bind2nd(match(), s));
>
| easier to understand on a high level compared to
>
| list.remove_if(bind(equal_to<string>(),
| bind(&Branch::getBranch, _1),
| s));
>
| but I've never written C++ code with functors...
match is a functor...
So to understand the first variant you have to inspect what match is
doing. The first variant would be ok if match had a proper name.
but regardless it should IMHO be written like:
list.remove_if(bind(match(), _1, s));
(but I am not sure that it is allowed)
| I think this is a case of
| hiding v.s. showing the details respectively. In this case, I get a
| bit of an information overload when I have to decipher all the
| levels of () etc.
| Another problem is that I don't know what the purpose is of
>
| bind(&Branch::getBranch, _1)
What can I say... bind is going to be part of TR1.
And it is easy to learn this construct.
>
| so I have to guess that, but with only 'match()' I immediately
| understand that it's about matching. Of course, I don't know _how_
| it works, to get an idea of what it does that's not necessary.
So you have no idea _what_ it matches and find still find it nice.
| Anyway, looking at it a bit, I see how it works and it's not that
| difficult, it's just a bit much in one statement.
>
| Maybe it would be more readable if a local variable was used for
| bind(&Branch::getBranch, _1)... )
| Perhaps like this (and remember that I don't know how to use
| functors):
Remember that a functor is just a class that has a operator().
| // Temporary operator that returns branch of element.
| ??? getBranchOperator = bind(&Branch::getBranch, _1);
Nah..
what this is:
_1->getBranch()
>> >> | Would boost::lambda help here?
>
| Just guessing from the name 'lambda'... isn't it like the lambda
| operator in lisp etc?
A little bit.
I am not sure of the lambda syntax, but it might look like:
_1->getBranch() == name
| If so, it'd probably help me (but then I like using lambda
| constructors...).
I have not dared to try to introduce those...
--
Lgb
