From: Dan Gohman (dgohman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-12 16:01:06
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 03:12:44PM +0200, Martin Wille wrote:
> The problem with this is that
> r |= a;
> would not be equivalent to
> r = r | a;
Actually, I meant to suggest this new operator|= be in addition to
the existing operator=, in which case the above two would be equivalant.
I think the operator|= would be more natural for writing traditional
EBNF code, though.
-- Dan Gohman dgohman_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk