Hi all, I've been using assign v1 for a long time, and I find it sometimes convenient to have at hand but I don't consider it a crucial tool. To have a v2 of the same library is to me..surprising.:) Very well, I compared the introduction of v1 and v2 to get a feeling for the difference V1:
The purpose of this library is to make it easy to fill containers with data by overloading operator,() and operator()(). These two operators make it possible to construct lists of values that are then copied into a container:
A parenthesis-separated list:
map<string,int> m; insert( m )( "Bar", 1 )( "Foo", 2 );
V2:
This second version of Boost.Assign is a new design, with optional support for C++0x. Its core utility is a compact interface for executing the repetitive tasks of assigning or inserting elements in a container, such as follows boost::for_each( cal | do_csv_put<2>( "jan", 31, "feb", 28, "mar", 31 ), std::cout << lambda::bind( &p_::first, lambda::_1 ) << ':' << lambda::bind( &p_::second, lambda:: _1 ) << ' ' ); // prints jan:31 feb:28 mar:31
To my taste, I prefer V1 insert( m )( "Bar", 1 )( "Foo", 2 ); over V2 m | do_csv_put<2>( "Bar", 1, "Foo", 2) Even if I would find V2's syntax to be more tasty to the eye, i don't see that motivating enough for a new library at this point. Very well, continuing to understand the V2 library.. This example captures the basic features of this library: It maps arguments to a suitable data-element, p_( k, x ), and invokes a
container's modifier, insert. These semantics vary by container category.
Operator | returns the modified container, thereby facilitating integration
with range algorithms. There is a function, csv_put, that achieves the same as above, but without returning the container.
Why is operator | used at all, if there are two separate functions? It doesn't look compelling to me and I'm perfectly fine with separating my statements, one for the assign part and one for the for_each part. In fact, the first example from the documentation would benefit from doing that, since it would be much more readable. cal | do_csv_put<2>( "jan", 31, "feb", 28, "mar", 31 ); boost::for_each(cal, long-lambda-expression..) Now it looks even more odd with the operator |. Additional features include:
Options for overriding default semantics, and macros to create custom options
What are the default semantics?
A functor analogue of csv_put, put, for constructing a sequence of elements from variadic argument lists Two functions, csv_deque<> and deque<>, which are the analogues of those just described, but which generate a container.
You lost me here. I needed to read those sentences a few time before I think I understand what you mean. Functionality that is adjunct to or independent of what precedes is itemized
below:
Surely, this can be written smoother, no? =)
Chaining ranges, with special consideration for those created using the ref functionalty (below)
I don't know what the docs are talking about at this point. Chaining ranges in the assign library? That sounds to the uneducated mind like a job for boost.range
Conversion from ranges to containers
This sentence doesn't make sence to me. std::container(range.begin(), range.end()) is supported by all containers.
A framework, whose identifiers are in namespace ref, for generating an array of reference wrappers, for short, a reference-array.
I do not understand this part. What kind of container are we attempting to populate here?
Functionality is defined in namespace boost::assign::v2, thereby avoiding any clash with the prior version [1].
Ok. Maybe V2 could show a compelling use-case that V1 lacks? I get the feeling V2 shows features I don't understand how to use, or didn't knew that I needed. Cheers, - christian