Re^4: An object replacing itself

Thanks for your reply. By the time you wrote it, I'd already coded a proper iterator.

I guess I liked the idea of avoiding the whole IDEA of an iterator, it would be one less THING to have to learn about, assign to a variable, conceptualize, etc. One less pair of parentheses in my TT2 template. One less class to write.

But if the idea is already common and widespread -- in fact, de riguer -- why swim against the tide ...

Thanks again

Comment on Re^4: An object replacing itself

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: An object replacing itself by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 24, 2004 at 12:14 UTC
As many are fond to point out - complexity exists, and it will make its prescence felt, no matter what you or I may want. So, the goal shouldn't be to reduce the complexity of the problem, but instead to channel that complexity in order to reduce the complexity of the solution. If the problem requires that extra thing to learn about in order to reduce the solution's complexity, then that is the true Laziness. Trying to skip a few characters in typing ... that is false Laziness, and should be avoided. Now, about your de rigeur argument ... that's how you got into trouble in the first place. You took a solution from a Great in his field and said "If XYZ says it works, then it must be the only way." Just because 90% of a group do things in a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. Granted, it's the way you should probably check out first, if only to know what it is. But, you should understand the solution, why the solution works the way it does, what problem(s) does it solve, and when is it not applicable. An iterator isn't always the right way to iterate through the items in a set. There are times when it's appropriate to use other concepts. However, I've never run into one. YMMV ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Then there are Damian modules.... sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon.* - flyingmoose I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: An object replacing itself
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 24, 2004 at 12:14 UTC

will

Now, about your de rigeur argument ... that's how you got into trouble in the first place. You took a solution from a Great in his field and said "If XYZ says it works, then it must be the only way." Just because 90% of a group do things in a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. Granted, it's the way you should probably check out first, if only to know what it is. But, you should understand the solution, why the solution works the way it does, what problem(s) does it solve, and when is it not applicable.

An iterator isn't always the right way to iterate through the items in a set. There are times when it's appropriate to use other concepts. However, I've never run into one. YMMV

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

[reply]