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

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-05 17:41:44

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> 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:
> >> >> 
> >> 
> >> > 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.

The concept we're working on provides for logical comparisons of
ranges of values resulting in a Boolean.  I see no use case for
other operators.

> >> > 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.

I just assumed it would be obvious.  Clearly I was wrong.

> Anyway, that suffers the same issue as the comma.  for which operators
> will
> 
>         all_of(a) @ any_of(b)
> 
> be unsupported?

Given that I see no need for any operator other than ==, !=,
<, >, <=, or >=, that leaves great latitude.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;