Rob Stewart wrote:
From: FlSt@gmx.de
My suggestion for each_of was to handle the situation in which each could match independently, whereas with all_of, each must match the same other value. IOW, given ranges L and R, each_of(L) == any_of(R) means that each value in L may match any value in R, whereas all_of(L) == any_of(R) means each value in L must match any single value in R. Thus, if L[n] == R[m] for any n in L and m in R, each_of(L) == any_of(R) is true. However, for all_of(L) == any_of(R), all values of L must equal R[m] for any m in R.
Now I understand it. If you compare our implementations, this is exactly what not_all_of in my implementation does.
"all_except_one" is quite common situation which may be considered too.
This is also the same like not_all_of
No. "all_except_one," or maybe "all_but_one," means exactly N - 1 matches, where N is the length of the range.
Yes your are right. It is the same like one_of where the result of the predicate is negated. I wouldn't add too much xxx_of operators, because the most expressions of them can be formulated with others. one_of( a ) > x means the same as all_except_one( a ) <= x Sincerly Florian