From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-05 15:18:59
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > all_of(a)(frobnicates, any_of(b))
> >> >
> >> I started there, but the placement of parens seems to arbitrary and
> >> unbalanced. Also, the whole point of infix is to get rid of those.
> > So you think this is better?
> >> >> all_of(a)._,frobnicates, any_of(b)
> Yes, but not as nice visually as
> all_of(a)._ <frobnicates> any_of(b)
> > Is the _ member needed?
> It is if you're going to support
> all_of(a) , all_of(b)
> just the same way as you'd support
> all_of(a) > all_of(b)
Why would we need that? I don't see a use case for it.
> If you give up support for the comma operator, you can use it for this
I think that's viable.
> > What about this:
> > all_of(a)@frobnicates_at_any_of(b)
> > That only needs, using the type names from my library,
> Needs what? A new language that supports the @ character?
Surely you understood I was using "@" as a placeholder for any
overloadable, binary operator.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk