On 05/16/2017 01:20 PM, Tim Song wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why the ovl_iterator assignment needs
to be provided but if it does, not also defining one on the derived
class will call the base and return a reference to the base, making
th
On 05/16/2017 01:05 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Martin,
Thanks for taking a look. There's a whole patch series I hope to land
over the next couple of weeks. Things may be clearer at that point.
Just a couple of suggestions, It looks like the classes model
the concept of Forward Iterator. May
On 05/16/2017 03:27 PM, Tim Song wrote:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Safe_bool
Oh, I see. I'm not going to stop someone adding it, but for me, it's
quite far down my priority list.
I suspect that we don't want adding two ovl_iterators together to compile.
Why would
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/16/2017 03:20 PM, Tim Song wrote:
>
>> Also, operator bool() seems suspect. Consider the safe bool idiom?
>
> ?
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Safe_bool
I suspect that we don't want adding two ovl_iterators together
On 05/16/2017 03:20 PM, Tim Song wrote:
Also, operator bool() seems suspect. Consider the safe bool idiom?
?
And is it intended that tree implicitly converts to both iterators, or
should those constructors be explicit?
Maybe. Not caused a problem in practice -- never passing iterators
aro
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand why the ovl_iterator assignment needs
> to be provided but if it does, not also defining one on the derived
> class will call the base and return a reference to the base, making
> the result no longer suitable where t
On 05/16/2017 03:05 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
PS More descriptive names would be a nice as well (neither
lkp_ nor ovl_ is intuitive enough at first glance.) Maybe
lookup_iter and overload_iter?
Works for me -- I just noticed we had things like vec_iterator already,
and continued that naming.
Martin,
Thanks for taking a look. There's a whole patch series I hope to land
over the next couple of weeks. Things may be clearer at that point.
Just a couple of suggestions, It looks like the classes model
the concept of Forward Iterator. May I suggest to make them
model it more closely
On 05/16/2017 08:50 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This patch implements new iterators for OVERLOADs. There are two
iterators:
ovl_iterator for a plain iterator, that held on a binding
lkp_iterator for the overload set returned by lookup.
To use them simply:
for (lkp_iterator iter (INIT); iter; ++
This patch implements new iterators for OVERLOADs. There are two iterators:
ovl_iterator for a plain iterator, that held on a binding
lkp_iterator for the overload set returned by lookup.
To use them simply:
for (lkp_iterator iter (INIT); iter; ++iter)
{ tree fn = *iter;
... }
Curre
10 matches
Mail list logo
