On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:29:24AM -0700, Vern Paxson wrote: > > Just one more thing still: I'm actually feeling pretty strongly > > against having multiple different operators for the same operation > > (set union, set addition/removal). > > I'm fine with removing "add" and "delete" for sets! (But seems we gotta > keep them for a good while for backward compatibility. Plus, what would > be the remove operator for tables? "t -= index" seems pretty weird to me.)
Perhaps my thinking is too driven by how this is handled internally - but thinking that way I am kind of opposed to get rid of add and delete for sets. For me sets were always a special case of tables - and it made complete sense that they operate in the same way. I think I actually would prefer just keeping add/delete, at least for sets, and not introduce the plus-syntax. While it is a bit shorter, add/delete is also not that ugly. And while you did not like the argument of Jon that that lets you more easily determine what is going on in the code I kind of think it has a bit of merit. Johanna _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
