> (3) Implement "v += e" to mean "append the element e to the vector v".
Do we want to do this now, or should we potentially wait a release-cycle with it (to prevent the situation where v + e and v+= e means something different). Looking at the emails I am generally not 100% sure if we reached consensus on this one. > (4) Wait on whether "v + e" should mean "return a vector that is v with > the element e appended". (And indeed we can't do this right now if > we're #2.) Yup. > I'm not clear whether we reached agreement on: > > (7?) Add "s1 &= s2" etc. to mean "s1 = s1 & s2". The advantage of > having this as an operator is it might more easily enable efficient > implementation of some set operations for big sets. I suppose > if we have it then we'd be expected to also have: > (7') "c1 &= c2" etc., i.e., bitwise assignments for "count" > variables. They were contained in the "minimal" list that Jon came up with. I think I would be ok with them, but they did not really get any discussion afterwards that I can see. Johanna _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
