Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Florian Stegner <FlSt@gmx.de>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Matthew Vogt <mattvogt@warpmail.net>
Matthew Vogt wrote:
I've uploaded yet another revision of multivalues.zip. I decided to go with "some" for n_m/subrange/subset/i_j/a_z/x_y/etc
I aggree with it. But each_of is still confusing for me. You implemented it as the negation of all_of: "( all_of( a ) > x ) != ( each_of( x ) > x )" is true for all a and x. each_of in your implementation is equivalent to not_all_of in mine. not_all_of in your implementation is the negation of one_of, what is ok. But each_of( a ) == x means that none or more but not all elements of a are equal to x. There must be a better name as each_of. I had just a quick look on your new implementation. I will post my results later.
I just took a look at my implementation of all and each. At least in my latest version, it's worse than you describe. They are identical. Regardless of how I've implemented them, these are the intended semantics:
all: all of the values must match *the same* other value
each: all of the values must match *some* other value
I will try to summarize all types of multivalues: any_of ( s ) <PRED> x -> is true if one or more elements of s satisfy the test "element <PRED> x" all_of( s ) <PRED> x -> is true all elements of s satisfy the test "element <PRED> x" none_of( s ) <PRED> x -> negation of any_of( a ): is false if one ore more elements of s satisfy[...] ???_of( s ) <PRED> x-> negation of all_of( a ) ( in my implementation not_all_of( a ) ): is false if all elements of s satisfy[...]. This is still missing in your implementation. Your implementation of not_all is the negation of any_of. one_of( s ) <PRED> x -> is true if exact one element of s statisfy[...] n_of( n, s ) <PRED> x -> is true if exact n elements of s satisfy[...] some_of( n, m, s ) <PRED> x -> is true if more than n and less than m+1 elements of s satisfy[...] From your description of each_of: Your implementation of all_of() is correct. I'm right? And each_of needs to refactored?
all_of( a ) [ _2 > _1 ] any_of( b )
Then we would have no more problems with operator precendence. :-)
That won't work. "all_of(a)::operator [](_2 > _1)" yields an object, but you end up with "result any_of(b)," where "result" is the object returned by operator [].
Ok you're right.
- documentation
I will help you so good I can.
I know it will be a challenge given that English isn't your native language. The Boolean logic is certainly one area I'll need your help. We can also discuss--privately, I think--the layout and outline.
Ok, good idea. And as I said in my private mail, I will rework my pdf-file next weekend.
There is a boost-sandbox CVS. Now after we have a common version ( Now it makes no sense develop my prototype further ) this would be a good place for our library. Or is the stage to early?
I think we should have some documentation first. Don't you agree?
I aggree. Sincerely Florian