From: John (EBo) David (ebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-26 06:49:56
From: "joel de guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Larry Evans" :
> > "John (EBo) David" wrote:
> > > From: "joel de guzman":
> > > >
> > > > From: "Douglas Gregor":
> > >
> > > haven't though much about it, but how about "digit" or
> > > "(a|b|c)[more]" instead...
> > > couldn't that work?
> > >
> > I think the problem here is what's the type of digit? If it's
> > like arrays, then digit is rank2, digit is rank1, and digit
> > is rank0. On the other hand, if you claim that all are rank 0, then
> > how do you distinguish whether the i in Parser::operator(int i) is for
> > the min or max repititions of *this?
> I certainly can do this in the framework. In my other post:
> > How about:
> > a; // exactly 2
> > a; // 0..2
> > a[more]; // 0...
> > a[more]; // 1...
> > This can be done.
Yep... Since I now get the Boost in digest form sometimes my responses
are a little behind the needle of the thread. Sorry for restating
something already mentioned.
> > PS> Do I hear yuck?
> Greg Colvin said: Yuck. I rather see a.repeat(0,more) or repeat<0,more>(a).
I agree. I think that reads much more clear to me. The  idea is
only useful if you REALLY want to use 's.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk