29 Sep
2005
29 Sep
'05
3:15 a.m.
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