Re: [boost] Interest for a perl6-like-junctions-class?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-05 16:09:52

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> >> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >    all_of(a)(frobnicates, any_of(b))
>> >> >
>> >> I started there, but the placement of parens seems to arbitrary and
>> >> unbalanced.  Also, the whole point of infix is to get rid of those.
>> >
>> > So you think this is better?
>> >
>> >> >>   all_of(a)._,frobnicates, any_of(b)
>> 
>> Yes, but not as nice visually as 
>> 
>>   all_of(a)._ <frobnicates> any_of(b)
>
> Maybe.
>
>> > Is the _ member needed?
>> 
>> It is if you're going to support
>> 
>>    all_of(a) , all_of(b)
>> 
>> just the same way as you'd support
>> 
>>    all_of(a) > all_of(b)
>
> Why would we need that?  I don't see a use case for it.

Generality.

>> If you give up support for the comma operator, you can use it for this
>> purpose.
>
> I think that's viable.
>
>> > What about this:
>> >
>> >    all_of(a)@frobnicates_at_any_of(b)
>> >
>> > That only needs, using the type names from my library,
>> 
>> Needs what?  A new language that supports the @ character?
>
> Surely you understood I was using "@" as a placeholder for any
> overloadable, binary operator.

No I didn't.  And stop calling me Surely.

Anyway, that suffers the same issue as the comma.  for which operators
will

        all_of(a) @ any_of(b)

be unsupported?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com