Boost logo

Boost :

From: FlSt_at_[hidden]
Date: 2005-07-28 01:49:50


>
>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>If that is a useful expression, it's more of a set operation than
>a junction operation (as exemplified by Perl's junctions) anyway,
>
http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/38/Perl_BlackJack.pdf.
This is the article from where my idea comes to have something similar
in C++ (I read the German translation in Linux Magazin 12/2003)

>right? Besides, normal algorithms can be used to express that
>quite succinctly. Do you need a new type for it? Maybe. I
>don't think it should be merged with the simpler ideas from Perl
>junctions. I think they are orthogonal behaviors, and the
>complexity argues against one type doing both tasks.
>
>
The Perl junctions aren't simpler, in Perl you can call functions either
in a scalar context or in a list context. The called function can
determine in which context it is called and return a scalar or a list. I
think my mistake was, I tried to bring this concept into C++ for
junctions, but it doesn't fit into the C++ type system. And there was no
example for this in the article I denoted in my first message.

A junction without junction result type and arithmetic operations is
something completely different I had in mind at the beginning of this
discussion. What remains now at the view point of the client are the
four functions any_of<T>, all_of<T>, one_of<T> and none_of<T> and the
comparison operators. The XXX_of functions should operate on ranges or
containers. I aggree.

Florian


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk