On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Rogier van Dalen <rogiervd@gmail.com>wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 13:28 +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Dear Developers and Users,
It's my pleasure to announce that the review of Neil Groves' RangeEx library starts today and lasts until March 3, 2009.
That's great news! I've much anticipated this library, since I'd hand-rolled similar components a long time ago. I hope to submit a formal review, but before I do, I hope to understand the motivation for the design better. I hope this is allowed within a formal review. This is related to my question at <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/140514.php>.
I am not sure I understand the motivation for the operator| syntax. Why couldn't vec | boost::adaptors::reversed | boost::adaptors::unique be written boost::adaptors::unique (boost::adaptors::reversed (vec)) ? I think this contrast would be fairer than what the documentation currently has. Is there a reason why it is not possible to provide both syntaxes? The pipe syntax is nice, but sort of restricts operations to 1 range in, 1 range out. Relatedly:
In the adaptors section the preference for operator| is documented. It simply chains better in my opinion.
I do provide both alternatives, for example
boost::make_uniqued_range(rng) is equivalent to rng | uniqued
IMHO the make_... syntax for range adaptors is horrible (i don't even like the past tense, why not just unique?). But why use two different names in the first place? Why not make 'some_functor(range) ' eqivalent to 'range | some_functor' (i would actually go for the syntax 'range | some_functor(_r)', where _r is a placeholder for the range; This is usefull for adaptors that actually have other parameters in addition to the range itself) -- gpd