Re: Ready to add dlw_oprs.zip?

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-23 19:35:53

on 12/19/00 6:00 AM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>

>> on 12/17/00 3:38 PM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:

>>> This version is much, much better. We're almost there, I think. Remarks:

>> I just put up a new version (15) in the vault, based on some of these
>> comments.

> The new descriptions for T and U are only getting worse, IMO, not better.
> There is nothing more descriptive to say about T and U other than "T, U:
> operand types". (sorry)

I shortened it in the latest version (17).  I want to distinguish between
the type that the operators will be associated with (T) and any other types
(U) that the operators may use.

> Do you think some explanation of the difference between the iterator
> archetypes and helpers would be in order? I have some doubts about the
> general utility of the iterator archetypes in situations where the iterator
> helpers couldn't be used. Are they worth the trouble? Users can easily build
> that functionality out of the component operator templates.

I added a little explanation.  I guess the archetype-only template could be
helpful if the iterator sub-typedefs were already done in the class.  (The
iterator helper templates would add a second version of those names.)

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com