From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-21 17:47:25
Eric Niebler wrote:
> I thought about that, and it's not unreasonable, either. It
> might cause less confusion. However, the different or_'s will
> often be used together, making qualification a requirement.
> Compare the following (assumes using namespace proto;):
>
> struct MyGrammar
> : control::or_<
> operators::or_<_,_>
> , operators::bitor_<_,_>
> >
> {};
>
> to
>
> struct MyGrammar
> : or_<
> logical_or<_,_>
> , bitwise_or<_,_>
> >
> {};
I don't mind having it the first way. Explicit is always better than
implicit. If that's too longish somebody could always use a using namespace
specification for whatever variant it may fit...
My main concern is name compatibility to mpl.
Regards Hartmut