Subject: Re: [boost] [qvm] Terseness of syntax etc.
From: Sam Kellett (samkellett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-10 10:54:41
On 10 December 2015 at 07:45, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Le 10/12/2015 00:58, Emil Dotchevski a écrit :
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> >> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't
> >>>
> >>> qvm::ref(v).XY()
> >>>
> >>> terse enough?
> >>>
> >>> Compared to (v,XY)?
> >>
> > The best is the enemy of the good.
> >
> > I requested if it is not terse enough.
> >
>
> This problem does not have a good solution in C++, any chosen operator has
> drawbacks. That said, I wouldn't support ref(v).X() for accessing the X
> element of a vector, or ref(v).XY() for swizzling.
what about ref(v)[xy]? wrapping the custom type in a ref call alleviates
the restriction against the () and [] operators.
or maybe: swizzle(v, xy)
i also wonder if this might be possible: ref(v)->xy assuming the xy is a
field in an enum that the operator-> returns. whether or not there's anyway
of intercepting that to actually do the swizzle though i'm not sure...