Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Rich Herrick, post: 1509266"] I agree. To be honest, I had forget about the == and != operators, and in my code I use the contains() member. I think I will remove them on future releases. But I still waffle back and forth on << and >>. I can see where they are extraneous, but I tend to like and use them a lot. The ! and void* operator I will probably remove also. Because, the reason I wrote it was because I wanted low-level control of the layout and the size. If I have a set with n items and n <= CHAR_BIT, I may want to fit them all into am unsigned char instead of an unsigned int. I do a lot of embedded software, dealing with drivers and memory-mapped registers and such. I'm use to have that kind of control, and tend to write interfaces with that in mind. I also deal with resources that are more constrained than an app. writer on a PC might. So, I guess the simple answer to your question is they wouldn't, except when the array is only one element in size, then I may want to use the smallest int type I can. Depends on what you are asking. If you are asking why pascal_set instead of bitset, then the answer is pascal_set is more typesafe then bitset and I want to mimic the Pascal set type as closely as I could, although I suppose I could have just wrapped bitset inside pascal_set. If you are asking why I didn't just wrap bitset inside my class instead of using an array, it comes down to control. I wanted control of the size and control of the bit-order. A lot of what I do interfaces with other languages (I write a lot of C, C++ and Ada--both '83 and '95), and memory-mapped registers. I have to know the layout. pascal_set makes it nice when dealing with set of bit flags in a memory-mapped register or an Ada bit array. Though its implementation specific, Ada compilers tend to use the MSB as bit 0 on a big-endian machine and the LSB as bit 0 on a little-endian machine. I wanted to be able to set my bit order to match. Plus, I want to see if I could use templates to create compile-set constant sets, which I may not be able to do with bitset. This is how the setof template evolved. My reasons probably aren't good enough for someone looking for a set class to choose mine over bitset or even set. But that's OK, I wrote it for me, and found it useful and a joy to use and thought to share it with anyone you may be interested. I am currently using it recreationally in writing some Interactive Fiction. And while writing this, I just thought of a big bug in the whole "traits" thing I must now fix.... Regards. [/QUOTE]

Verification