Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-29 13:04:28

On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 
> on Fri Oct 26 2012, Rob Stewart <robertstewart-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Ian Emmons <iemmons_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> I also think the choice of operator here is not ideal.  How does the
>>> xor operator evoke any notion of this operation?
>> 
>> The circumflex has two tails that merge at the top.
> 
> :-) by that measure,
> 
>> =
> 
> would be a good choice too.  

:)

>>>> f) grid - dataset constructed by "multiplying" 2 datasets of the same different
>>>>        sizes and types type 
>>>> 
>>>> This dataset has an arity which is sum of argument dataset arities.
>>>> 
>>>> int   a[] = {1,2,3};
>>>> char* b[] = {"qwe", "asd"};
>>>> double c[] = {1.1, 2.2};
>>>> 
>>>> data::make(a) * data::make(b) * data::make(c)
>>>> dataset with 12 samples which are tuples of int and char* and double.
>>> 
>>> For people with a database background, "cross product" is the
>>> obvious name for this.  Calling it anything else is silly.
>> 
>> Not only is "cross product" wrong, but you should not call the OP for
>> having a different idea than you.

I meant "call the OP silly" of course.

>> From what's written here, it's hard to know whether "cross product" is
> wrong or not, but given the number of samples cited, I'm inclined to
> believe it's probably right.  What result other than the cross product
> do you think that means?

I think others have addressed this thoroughly.

___
Rob