christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
I'm happy to add classes to make the library easier to use even if efficiency is sacrificed. one_step_filter is an example of this. I'm just looking for an example where it would be easier to write a filter as above than to use one of the existing filters concepts.
Writing, learning, understanding and reading concepts is hard for inexperienced (and some experienced) C++ programmers. I still get confused and frustrated when using them, and I am not completely wet behind the ears.
I agree with this. I'm happy to add features which make the library easier to use.
It took me a couple of hours to figure out how to write that trivial extension to your library, despite the fact that the library and documentation is extremely well written.
Thanks.
Not conforming programs: main must return int. Also, you can't *use* the main function. E.g.,
void f() { return main(); // error. }
I realize that. I meant that many of these programs can easily have their guts placed in void functions.
void DoWork() { // do work }
int main() { DoWork(); }
Okay, but do you really expect people to start writing programs this way? I think people would only do this to conform to your filter concept. My question is: why aren't the other concepts sufficient?
By taking this one simple step, a person's code could then be easily reused. This does overlook the fact that most filter programs take parameters which is trivially remedied.
Note that none of the other concepts has this problem.
The only reason to ever choose a over b or c, is simplicity and ease of use.
I understand that's what you're arguing, and it's a perfectly acceptable justification. But I haven't seen an example yet.
Consider the following program:
int main() { char c; while (cin.get(c)) cout.put(toupper(c)); return 0; }
...
I guess I should have asked for a *realistic* example. If you really write such simple programs you don't have to worry about reuse; it's simpler to write the whole program again from scratch.
The expression
filter1() | filter2() [A]
Sorry, I thought it was a statement. Wouldn't it be useful to also allow one liners with a separate syntax:
source() > filter1() > filter2() > sink();
As I mentioned in a previous message, I think this is a good idea, if it uses the pipe notation. I don't see why a different operator should be used. Jonathan