Re: for_UP_and_DOWN

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 04:49:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Łukasz Czerwiński <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > The final suggestion depends on suggestions from all of you. If you
> > find a better idea for (UP_and_DOWN(d)), I'll do so. If you find
> > easier: for_UP_and_DOWN, it could be this.
> 
> I find for_UP_and_DOWN somewhat more consistent, but syntax-aware
> editors (and indenters) don't share my sentinent.  So using that will be
> rather boorish.

That's precisely why I liked the suggestion of
  for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
    {
    }
since editors will have no problem with that.

> The C++ way would be to use iterators here.  Something like
> 
> use std;
> 
> const vector <Direction> up_and_down { UP, DOWN };
> 
> for (vector<Direction>::iterator d = up_and_down.cbegin ();
>      d != up_and_down.cend(); ++d) {
>     [Do something with *d]
> }

...
is that really the kind of un-abstraction you like to see?
I mean, sure, go ahead and use an iterator for the macro
definition.  But my eyes glaze over when I see a for loop spanning
multiple lines.  All we want to do is execute some code for UP and
DOWN.


> > I'd like to write code, that will make Lilypond better or easier to be
> > used
> 
> Not necessarily the same as "the C++ way".

inb4 "those goals are mutually incompatible".  ;)

- Graham