[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Delegating ctor uncalled for?

From: Vadim Zeitlin
Subject: Re: [lmi] Delegating ctor uncalled for?
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:18:14 +0100

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:52:58 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> What do you think of the patch below[0]? The question I'm struggling with
GC> is whether it's worth an extra fifty lines of code just to say "don't use
GC> class SequenceParser directly"...though it would require only half as many
GC> extra lines if we use the following idea...


 I'm afraid I can't say anything really original about this, but just
repeat what I had already written before: yes, I do think the patch below
improves things and I also think that using an auxiliary struct containing
input parameters would make it even better.

 This being said, the changes done so far, eliminating the "less clear" (at
least to me) constructors have already helped a lot, so things are
definitely better somewhat reducing the urgency of improving them even
further. But, still, my opinion remains that using ParseSequence() with
"named parameters" would be even.

 Thanks in advance,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]