4 ms·

I don't particularly understand what makes the second one more confusing than the first. In particular, as a non-c programmer this: "(*i)->faceValue()" would

by sosorry 16y ago

I don't particularly understand what makes the second one more confusing than the first. In particular, as a non-c programmer this: "(*i)->faceValue()" would be pretty confusing to me. The first one in 'English': "For each i starting at dice.begin(), while i is not equal to dice.end, incrementing i. Add to 'total' the face value of the thing that i is pointing to." The second one in 'English': "Accumulate from dice.begin to dice.end, initializing the accumulator to 0, adding the face value of each die." The first one might be idiomatic C++, but it doesn't seem to me that it would be idiomatic in any natural language. (reduce #'+ (map 'list #'faceValue dice)) what is obvious depends on your background.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Avshalom 16y ago
Really? bind(std::plus(), _1, bind(&Die::faceValue, _2)) reads as "adding the face value of each die." to you? how. Because not knowing bind() or c++ I'm wondering what _1 and _2 means. More importantly why bind seems to take an operator, _#, and something, on the outside but takes only an integer and _# on the inside call. and, although the surround code might explain it, where 'Die' came from. Unless you're just overlooking everything on that line except Die::facevalue. If you are, then why keep mentioning the 'i' in the for loop version.
- sosorry 16y ago
  Yes, really! I do a lot more functional programming than I do imperative programming. An anonymous function in context of an accumulator is obvious to me. The point that I maybe didn't make so well was that the second version is working in higher level constructs. The first version is doing a lot of integer and pointer manipulation, the second is summing across a collection. The two versions might be speaking in different languages, to some extent, but that doesn't mean that one or the other is aesthetically wrong.
praptak 16y ago
"I don't particularly understand what makes the second one more confusing than the first." To understand the first one, you only need to know the basic C++ constructs. For the second one you need to know: * the meaning of the four positional arguments to accumulate() * the semantics of bind() * the semantics of boost's placeholders Even with some knowledge of the above, figuring out the nested binds takes a while.

by sosorry 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Avshalom 16y ago

Really? bind(std::plus(), _1, bind(&Die::faceValue, _2)) reads as "adding the face value of each die." to you? how. Because not knowing bind() or c++ I'm wondering what _1 and _2 means. More importantly why bind seems to take an operator, _#, and something, on the outside but takes only an integer and _# on the inside call. and, although the surround code might explain it, where 'Die' came from. Unless you're just overlooking everything on that line except Die::facevalue. If you are, then why keep mentioning the 'i' in the for loop version.

sosorry 16y ago
Yes, really! I do a lot more functional programming than I do imperative programming. An anonymous function in context of an accumulator is obvious to me. The point that I maybe didn't make so well was that the second version is working in higher level constructs. The first version is doing a lot of integer and pointer manipulation, the second is summing across a collection. The two versions might be speaking in different languages, to some extent, but that doesn't mean that one or the other is aesthetically wrong.

praptak 16y ago

"I don't particularly understand what makes the second one more confusing than the first." To understand the first one, you only need to know the basic C++ constructs. For the second one you need to know: * the meaning of the four positional arguments to accumulate() * the semantics of bind() * the semantics of boost's placeholders Even with some knowledge of the above, figuring out the nested binds takes a while.