<FlSt@gmx.de> wrote in message news:42E51034.7040508@gmx.de...
Hello Rob.
[...]
I have a few questions about your design:
Why "super position" versus Perl's "junction?" When describing the enumerators, you use the Perl terminology, apparently because it makes sense. Frankly, I don't "get" "super position."
Before it was a built-in feature of Perl, something similar was available as a CPAN module called Quantum::SuperPosition. This naming comes from the quantum physics where elementary particles can have more than one state, called super position. But i think its more evident to call it "junction". (Furthermore "super position" sounds overblown ;-)
Perhaps part of the confusion is that "superposition" is a single word and not two. Merriam Webster defines superposition: 1 : to place or lay over or above whether in or not in contact : SUPERIMPOSE 2 : to lay (as a geometric figure) upon another so as to make all like parts coincide That said, the functionality(in the 1st example) appears to me as a compile-time-set of values. Perhaps mpl already has much of the needed facilities to say(for the scalar case): if( compile_time_set<1,4,9>().count( dave ) ) ... Reading the link describing junction even further, it appears that std::set provides some of the desired functionality. There have been at least a few posting here and on comp.lang.c++* discussing making set operations more complete. I've been finding myself addressing these issue often enough these days to look at implementing a more general solution. So rather than creating new(as far as C++ is concerned) terminology, I'd find general expansion of set manipulating functionality more useful. Thanks, Jeff Flinn