On May 20, 2015 10:55:54 PM GMT+07:00, Kenneth Heafield <[email protected]> wrote: >On 05/19/2015 11:50 PM, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote: >> >>>>> Also, how would you feel if I changed it to be FakeIFStream with >>>>> operator>> extraction, at least for integer/float types? >>>> >>>> Sorry, I haven't looked into FakeIFStream at all yet, and I may not >>>> fully understand the question. >>> >>> It doesn't exist yet. I am contemplating refactoring FilePiece to >have >>> operator>> and renaming it to FakeIFStream. >> >> Any ideas on how you would map the different ways of reading into a >> stream-style API? By adding manipulators? One thing I don't like >about >> those is that they require you to track and understand more stream >state >> to understand exactly what a piece of code does. >> >> I do think turning the class into a stream will make code easier to >> follow generally. On the flip side, it may make it harder to find >out >> which function is being called where. That matters when debugging >the >> finer points, as I've been doing with this carriage-return issue. > >Let's take this off-list. I don't like manipulators either. Just >thinking it would have getline and operator>> for built-in types. And >other methods for more specialized types of reading. >_______________________________________________ >Moses-support mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
Sure. So the main thing is the field conversions? That does sound very stream-like. Jeroen _______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
