From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
all_of(a)(frobnicates, any_of(b))
I started there, but the placement of parens seems to arbitrary and unbalanced. Also, the whole point of infix is to get rid of those.
So you think this is better?
all_of(a)._,frobnicates, any_of(b)
Yes, but not as nice visually as
all_of(a)._ <frobnicates> any_of(b)
Maybe.
Is the _ member needed?
It is if you're going to support
all_of(a) , all_of(b)
just the same way as you'd support
all_of(a) > all_of(b)
Why would we need that? I don't see a use case for it.
If you give up support for the comma operator, you can use it for this purpose.
I think that's viable.
What about this:
all_of(a)@frobnicates@any_of(b)
That only needs, using the type names from my library,
Needs what? A new language that supports the @ character?
Surely you understood I was using "@" as a placeholder for any overloadable, binary operator. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;