Re: Automata builder -- interface

From: jcampbell3_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-05-31 10:45:11

--- In boost_at_y..., "joel de guzman" <isis-tech_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "Douglas Gregor"
> 
...skipping
> > Doug
> >
> 
> If we did it George Heintzelman's way, |= instead of = for new
productions,
> we don't have to pay for the feature if we don't use it. The penalty
is the
> added code to the = operator. If we let that as is (no redefines)
and
> use the |= for new productions (alternatives), then we have a
win-win
> situation: no penalty if the feature is not used and clarity in the
> imperative
> perspective.
> 
> a = b;
> a |= c;
> a |= d;
> if (flag) a |= e;
Someone seeing |= might think >>= is also defined.  Should
this also be provided?  Then what about &=?