From:	jon_bills AT hotmail DOT com (Jon Bills)
Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: More out from "cout"....
Date:	8 Oct 2001 11:36:33 -0700
Organization:	http://groups.google.com/
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<38315c2d.0110081036.48deb120@posting.google.com>
References:	<9pque5$eui$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi> <38315c2d DOT 0110080044 DOT 40ead28d AT posting DOT google DOT com> <9ps443$hv$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	62.7.106.224
X-Trace:	posting.google.com 1002566194 30495 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2001 18:36:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date:	8 Oct 2001 18:36:34 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Traveler" <traveler AT netti DOT fi> wrote in message news:<9ps443$hv$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi>...
> > What's wrong with using a vector and for each()?
> > 
> > Jon.
> 
> Show me the way you do it ....

Try looking up for_each(). Cameron also pointed out that the
ostream_iterator can be used for writing to an output stream.

> If it?s less clumsy than mine and works for every damn new class 
> declared then your?s is better :)

I'm not interested in whether you think my way is better or not. What
matters to me is that I do not find it useful to overload operators to
do surprising things, particularly when there is a perfectly
acceptable library feature that fulfils the need (and is far more
flexible).

> 
> traveler AT netti DOT fi

Jon.

- Raw text -