Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that this scheme makes basic_character far more complicated,
Yes, I was hoping to limit the interface to a single conversion operator. I'd hate to see someone just learning the library look up get() in the reference section, click on the return type and be confronted with a monstrous synopsis. Could I present a "fictional" synopsis of basic_character, which doesn't show all the overloads, and include a note explaining the problem?
What's fictional?. The operators to which you refer would not be implemented as members,
They might be friends implemented in-class.
so you can add a section like this to the basic_character interface section:
For numeric and character comparisions, basic_character also has the following operators available, where OP is ==, !=, >, <, >=, and <=:
template <typename Ch> bool operator OP(basic_character<Ch>, Ch);
template <typename Ch> bool operator OP(basic_character<Ch>, int);
template <typename Ch> bool operator OP(Ch, basic_character<Ch>);
template <typename Ch> bool operator OP(int, basic_character<Ch>);
That's pretty good -- I like "Op". I also need overloads for + and -, which should return basic_character, I think. And +=/-=. Jonathan