From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-13 11:04:15
At Thursday 2002/06/13 03:26, you wrote:
>"Matthew Wilson" <mwilson_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Have you considered the worth of making your tokeniser deal with separator
> > that are not one character in length, ie strings? I imagine this would
> > expand its appeal.
>I've thought about it, but it leads to the question of two different
>interpretation of it. Say we use
> name_value_pair nv(":=", '\n');
>Now, what should that mean? ":=" as the single delimiter; or either ":" or
>"=" as the delimiter?
you will probably need both...so you will need two items. At least that's
the conclusion we came to when we wrote our simple "split string" functions
at my last job.
> > Also, your current implementation looks to be char type only. Presumably
> > is in your list of to-dos to make its char type parameterisable?
> Ya'know, I didn't either notice I was doing that.... Yeah, that should
>be easy to convert.
> The other thing I wanted to do, is offer optional whitespace trimming,
>but it seems to me the only way to pull that off it to iterator over part of
>the range [next,end) twice. I forget. Is that allowable on an
>James Curran [MVP]
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk