From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-27 10:12:43
On Sunday 27 May 2001 03:21 am, you wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 May 2001 10:58 pm, you wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > PS> But what if we disallow the third level []?
> > > e[0] is a paradox even with the other iterator
> > > styles: e(0) or e.repeat(0). Should it match
> > > anything or nothing? Matching anything is
> > > the universal string U. The simplest way out
> > > thatI could think of is to disallow it.
> >
> > One would expect e(0) to match nothing because, presumable, e(1) ==
>
> e,
>
> > e(2) = e >> e, etc. That's what I would expect from the single-
>
> argument forms.
>
> > This goes back to the exact problem that came up with the
>
> multidimensional
>
> > array library. The following is ambiguous:
> >
> > e[3][5]
> >
> > It could equal e[3] | e[4] | e[5] or it could equal e[15].
> > Now you know why I support using the () syntax or a repeat function
>
> instead
>
> > of operator[].
> >
> > I mentioned it back in the multidim library discussions, so I'll
>
> mention it
>
> > here. If we wanted a large degree of flexibility (as was needed for
>
> array
>
> > slicing), we could support syntax like:
> >
> > e[0 <= stride(2) <= 8]
> >
> > which is equivalent to:
> >
> > e[0] | e[2] | e[4] | e[6] | e[8]
> >
> > Doug
>
> ========================================
> Is it just me? Whuy am I not getting
> the messages from the boost mailing list?
> =========================================
Sounds like it it's just you :(
> Anyway, consider this:
>
> struct X { X1 operator[](uint n) const; };
> struct X1 { X2 operator[](uint n) const; };
> struct X2 {};
>
> Now:
>
> X x;
>
> x[1]; ... yields an X1 type
> x[1][2]; ... yields an X2 type
> x[1][2][3]; ... no such operator in X2
>
> Joel de Guzman
I know this, and I'm assuming there are two forms for repetition:
e[N] - Repeat "e" exactly N times
e[X][Y] - Repeat "e" at least X and at most Y times (Y can be infinity).
Using the bracket operator for this creates an ambiguity with, for instance:
e[X][Y]
This could be read as "repeat `e' at least X and at most Y times" or "repeat
`e' X times and then repeat that Y times." If we instead use a syntax where
there is a comma between X and Y, then we've surely differentiated between
two repetition forms (e[X][Y] is obviously different than e[X, Y]). Brackets
unfortunately won't let us do that, but the function call operator() will, as
will free functions.
Doug