From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-28 22:15:29
Alexander Borghgraef wrote:
> Ok, that fixes it. Now, hardcore algorithmism aside, I don't see any
> advantage in this over the
> for loop: it's slower, and can hardly be called an improvement in
> readability. So I think I'll stick to
> the old-fashioned syntax in this case. Still, interesting to know that
> boost::lambda actually can do
> this.
YMMV. In this case, I'd use BOOST_FOREACH.
Cheers,
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net