Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "isa_and_some_word".
Did you mean:
isa_and_some_words
2019 May 04
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...some who
> > preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since
> > `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as
> > `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being.
>
> Maybe I missed something, but it looked to me as if the consensus was
> that `isa_and_some_words<T>(foo)` imposed a higher cognitive load on the
> reader than `foo && isa<T>(foo)`, as well as being more to type in most
> cases, so wasn't worth adding.
>
FWIW, I agree with this and Bogner: this doesn't seem like an improvement
worth the cost.
> David...
2019 May 05
3
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...t wasn't overwhelming, and since
> >> > `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as
> >> > `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being.
> >>
> >> Maybe I missed something, but it looked to me as if the consensus was
> >> that `isa_and_some_words<T>(foo)` imposed a higher cognitive load on the
> >> reader than `foo && isa<T>(foo)`, as well as being more to type in most
> >> cases, so wasn't worth adding.
> >
> >
> > FWIW, I agree with this and Bogner: this doesn't seem like an...
2019 Apr 22
3
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
Hi All:
Just wanted to wind this up and summarize the results.
Although there were a few no votes, it looks like there's a consensus for
adding a `isa_and_nonnull` type operator. While there were some who
preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since
`isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as
`isa_and_nonnull` for the time being.
Thanks for all