Re: [lmi] Re: "consistent style for calling this->operator[]()" change

[Greg Chicares]

On 2006-10-26 13:38 UTC, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:19:26 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> 20061026T1315Z change: I don't see one way as better than another,
> GC> so I used the style that predominates in HEAD.
> 
>  For the reference:
> 
> -        (*this)[child->get_name()] = xml_lmi::get_content(*child);
> +        operator[](child->get_name()) = xml_lmi::get_content(*child);
> 
> GC> Perhaps this change is completely noncontroversial. If not, please
> GC> open a discussion on the mailing list.
> 
>  I don't really want to open a huge discussion about it as the issue is
> not very important, but I think the style using explicit "operator[]" is
> rather unusual.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it's unusual.

>  So it seems like Evgeniy's version is more common than the alternative
> one, although by lesser margin than I thought. But note that projects such
> as gcc libstdc++ and STLport do use (*this)[] and I think they're worth of
> emulation.

I thought they wrote 'this' explicitly everywhere because of:
  http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/templates/#whythisarrow

I don't mind changing to Evgeniy's version, in principle.
I just want to introduce no unnecessary differences between
branch and trunk before merging them. After the merge--that
is, a month or so from now--I'd accept a set of changes that
result in a consistent '(*this)[XXX]' style across the whole
project.