Re: More about ADTs

I guess it could work, but I personally find such abuses of << and >>

...

quite ugly.

/ Niels Möller ()

Previous text:

2002-11-11 19:55: Subject: Re: More about ADTs

---

...

Somewhat verbose, but I think that's ok for destructive operations that are expected to be used an order of magnitude more seldom than for instance plain indexing (->).

They might be sufficient untils someone finds out operators for these operations.

Are shift operators used for these datatypes?

set<<elem; set>>elem;

A little C++-ish though, and lacks a syntax for key:value tupels...

Maybe set<<[elem] set>>[elem] map<<[key;elem] map>>[key]

...is that possible to parse?

/ Brevbäraren