|L B wrote:|
|[quote=Framework]I'm not trolling, so stop throwing that damn word ["trolling"] around, would you. Also, why do you assume I'm trolling? Is it because I haven't agreed with anything you've said on the subject?|
No, it's because you're making statements that I expect to be false in all cases - I have no other way of knowing whether people are trolling me or not, sorry for not being omniscient. It has nothing to do with agreeing on anything.
|I am being serious -- if you don't like what I have to say, there are better ways to reply to me other than "you're trolling" like a child.|
Sorry, it's just a very very unbelievable situation. I'll believe you now.
|I would use classes, but I'll let you figure that out.|
A whole class for a simple function, obscuring syntax and adding complexity? If I didn't know you were being serious, I'd use that word you don't like.
|If it was obscure, I would've said so by now. Also, I'll always prefer the "for( x; y; z )" variation due to the level of control I have over it.|
Both varieties give the same level of control, I've even made an example proving it several posts back. To everyone I know, for(x; y; z) is very obscure and for(v : c) is much less obscure. I've been working with the traditional for loops for years now and they still look obscure.
This isn't about being able to tell how it does its job, this is about being able to tell what it does.
for(x; y; z) tells you how it behaves, but you have to think and figure out what it actually does.
for(v : c) tells you what it does, and you don't have to worry about how it behaves because you only need to know what it does.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted or otherwise attacked - I'm just having a very hard time believing that you mean what you're writing.[/quote]
@MiiNiPaa: perfect example, in this case it is impossible without the use of std::begin and std::end.