From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-19 11:23:16
From: Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> On 9/16/05 12:49 PM, "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > From: Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]>
> >> Daryle Walker wrote:
> >>> On 9/15/05 1:10 PM, "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>> It looks like the current setup is not STL-friendly. Most of the "what"
> >>> list is one type of thing, the in-order pieces of the regex parse. The
> >>> first item of the list doesn't match that pattern (since it's the whole
> > That's completely STL-friendly: there are iterators. When using
> > STL-style algorithms, one must determine the applicable range.
> > For many uses, I'll grant that you'd want to skip the first
> > element, but that hardly constitutes being unfriendly to the STL.
> Making something like:
> std::copy( pieces.begin(), pieces.end(), destination );
> completely useless isn't unfriendly? You'll have to use a (mutable) object
> to store "pieces.begin()" so you can increment it before the copy, or use a
> "+ 1" if the "what" list supports random iteration.
Martin Bonner had the same reaction as I did when I read that:
why not just pass ++pieces.begin()? Furthermore, as I said, one
must always determine the applicable range to pass to an
algorithm. Sure it's nice to pass the whole range, but you can't
always do that. The downside here is that you'd rarely want to do
that (maybe to copy the strings for some post processing or doing
> >>> parse). I'm guessing that this "old" way wasn't a problem because people
> >>> expected 1-based arrays, so the 0-index could be special. That doesn't
> >>> work
> >>> in a 0-based array culture, like C++ (or C). C++ people would expect the
> >>> 0-index element to match the general rule of the list. This mixing of
> >>> element types mixes concerns (violating "keep it simple, silly"). A
> >>> STL-friendly alternative would to have separate member functions for the
> >>> whole-parse and the list-of-parse-pieces, then have a special function
> >>> (member or non-member) that generates a regex-culture combined list.
> > You could fatten the interface that way, but it really wouldn't
> > gain much and can certainly lead to confusion because of the
> > differing indices based upon which interface one uses.
> I'm guessing that C++ people would use the single-step interface and not
> bother with numeric indices, and Regex people would do the reverse. And I
> suspect that the C++ format is internally generated anyway and just hidden
> before the whole-string piece is prepended to it. The only "flaw" is that
> numeric indices require random-acess iteration, which brings a single-step
> interface because it's a superset of forward iteration.
What about "C++ people" that are also "Regex people?" Which do
they use? Note also what I said here:
> > Since each user of the library could choose a different
> > interface, maintenence would be more difficult due to requiring
> > knowledge of all of the interfaces and knowing which was employed
> > in a given case.
> Restating what I said, I think most people would pick a C++ culture
> interface at every step or a Regex culture interface at every step.
If a "C++ person" chose the C++ interface and a maintainer was a
"Regex person," confusion would ensue.
> > There are numerous examples of using the 0th element to be "the
> > whole thing" and then the parts being elements 1 through N. For
> > example awk uses $0 for the entire line and $1 through $(NF) for
> > support provides the entire matched string in element 0 of the
> > result, with the captures in elements 1 through N.
> I'm guessing that these many not be independent examples, but simple
> borrowing of an interface. In other words, doing it just to follow
> "regex" does. And maybe "awk" does it because "regex" does. (Or since I
> don't know too much about Unix history, the order could be reversed so
> "regex" copied the idea from "awk" instead. And then "awk" would have done
> it to save resources, which were tight back then.)
You may be right, but is it wise to part with decades of
Besides, I think Eric pointed out the biggest reason to keep the
1-based capture interface: the captures in the RE are 1-based, so
those accessed from C++ should be, too.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk