From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-19 12:35:09
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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]>
> Martin Bonner had the same reaction as I did when I read that:
> why not just pass ++pieces.begin()?
Actually boost::next(pieces.begin()) would be more general.
> 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;
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk