On 23/12/2011 04:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
<snip>
I mean that you have to be way more careful about how you name the flags. For
instance, if you have
MMM
and
Month
you have issues with stuff like MMMonth.
To quote directly from the spec of my scheme:
"Each specifier is a letter, or two or more of the same letter consecutively (picked out
by maximal munch before lookup in the following table)."
So this is a non-issue.
It can definitely work, but the more
flags that you have, the more problematic it becomes. It's also easier to
separate out consecutive flags when reading them if you have %.
Here's the little bit of code in my library that finds the end of a flag:
char letter = cast(char) std.ctype.tolower(*charPos);
CPtr!(char) beginSpec = charPos;
do {
++charPos;
} while (std.ctype.tolower(*charPos) == letter);
Seems to me pretty straightforward.
It's an interesting approach, but it isn't as
flexible as it could be because of its use of maximul munch instead of %
flags.
How do you mean?
It's harder to have modifiers for flags without the %. For instance, what I'm
doing with filler characters would be much more difficult with your scheme. With
% delineating the flags, it becomes easier to handle that sort of thing.
<snip>
What are you doing with filler characters? It appears to me, just allowing space or 0 as
a filler character in some flags. In my system, alignment fields provide a more powerful
way of doing the same thing.
Stewart.
