From: Samuel Krempp (krempp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 21:17:21
> I don't like it. I don't know which "both" syntaxes are, but I'd vote for
> one syntax and no spaces.
yeah, space really was not a good choice, but I realised that when writing
Then I tried to choose any other char, and '%' is fine.
even if it already has a meaning, it doesnt make the parsing harder.
and " %1% %2%" look nice, and allow support for the 2 forms.
The first is printf's, with a set of modifying flags (padding numbers with
0 when on the left, adding + to positive numbers, ..... ,precision,
scientific mode vs fixed, and the like.. )
%s means 'next argument please !'
%5$s means 5th argument
%2$-4s means second argument, aligned on left border, and width=4
and lots of funny flags, like
format("%1$d = hex:%1$x oct:%1$o \n") % 18;
The second is "short-positional-notation", in which we
can indicate the number of the argument, nothing more.
%2% for second argument..
> > "only objects with const operator<< defined are formattable".
> > (even if needing to modify the object at print-time sounds like
> > bad-design..)
> Yes it does! In general you are right about the 2^n explosion. I think this
> case might be an exception.
then, could the "format-as-a-function" previous implementation be accepted
into boost ?
> > else, the function approach has some possibilities that can't be beaten by
> > passing arguments through an operator !
> I do like the operator approach, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk