From: Ross Smith (r-smith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-12 20:25:45
On Sunday, 13 October 2002 10:01, Dan Gohman wrote:
> 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.
I'd just like to second this. I think it's a very good idea.
-- Ross Smith ......... r-smith_at_[hidden] ......... Auckland, New Zealand "I'm deeply concerned about a leader who has ignored the United Nations for all these years, refused to conform to resolution after resolution after resolution, who has weapons of mass destruction." -- George W. Bush, Jr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk