"Rob Stewart" wrote:
We presently support these operations:
all any each n_m n none not_all one
...
|each | if each succeeds independently, the expression | | is true
I didn't find time to study neither of the current implementations (you both code faster than I can read ;-) so I am bit confused by the difference between "each" and "all". "all_except_one" is quite common situation which may be considered too. Is the "more_of(x) < more_of(y)" feature implementable?
How do these look?
at_least(n).of(a) between(x, y).of(a) exactly(n).of(a) less_than(n).of(a) more_than(n).of(a)
The "of" may be easily overlooked. A "item_of" or so would be harder to miss.
Should we include "percent_of?"
With this (or "fraction_of" or so) user won't be bothered to extract size of a range manually. His code would be bit simpler. If the range size is hard to compute (some std::list implementations) it may be also more efficient.
Should we provide the alternate spellings like "at_least," "more_than," and "one?"
IMO yes. It would allow user to pick the best word in given context (Or at least ability to use a convenient word w/o searching through documentation for the oficially blessed variant.) ----------------------- Will it be possible to have one range in the expressions above fitting InputIterator model? For example: none_of(integers_stored_in_large_and_slow_file) > any_of(values) Perhaps the library may detect such situation and work around the InputIterator limitations. Alternatively: would be possible to give a hint to the algorithm which range is larger (more expensive to traverse) to optimize the result? Say something as: none_of(a).traverse_once() > all_of(b) /Pavel