Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
Perhaps there's time to improve the proposed interface, too?
It's too late for TR1 but not for C++0X.
Maybe a note clarifying that while spaces are significant in a Perl or, for that matter, a dynamic xpressive RE, they aren't significant in a static xpressive RE other than in literals.
But this is obvious, and I don't think pointing out the obvious makes for better documentation.
What about "beg" and "end?" I realize they aren't reusing the proposed terminology, but they avoid the "sequence/buffer/input" issue.
Beginning of what? End of what? The line? The word? The sequence/input/buffer? beg/end are not specific enough, nor are they more memorable than bos/eos, IMO. Besides, "end" is too common to make it a namespace scoped constant, and "beg" is a word of its own with a meaning distinct than "begin". Nope, bos/eos are it. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com