From: Thomas Matelich (toms-mailing-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-26 18:02:47
Darin Adler wrote:
> This proposal s a way to make an even-more-concise syntax, which could be
> appropriate for something that's as often used as this.
> I am a heavy user of perl, but I still think I prefer the more straitlaced
> replace_all(str, regexp("tru*"), "tru")
> to something like:
> str << s/tru*/tru/g;
As a non-user of perl, I would request the replace_all syntax to be
developed/included. It is easier for me to understand that than learn new operator
overloading. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to the perl type, there is some cool
stuff going on there from what I saw.
-- Thomas O Matelich Senior Software Designer Zetec, Inc. matelich_at_[hidden] tmatelich_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk