separate things. It may be a while until I get around
to working on all this again, so let me know if you
have any new insights in this regard.
Thomas Becker
Zephyr Associates, Inc.
Zephyr Cove, NV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do you Yahoo!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unless I'm missing something, I believe that my
> > original rough intuition was ok. Given my
> combining
> > iterator, it seems very easy to write your tuple
> > iterator by
I always deal with sequences of
possibly different length (think portfolio of assets
with different dates of inception). Now
parallel-iteration is really ugly business. There's
always a bigger can of worms...
Thomas Becker
Zephyr Associates, Inc.
Zephyr
J columns, I made a big
fool of myself by gratuitously packaging function
arguments into a tuple, and I seem to remember that
you were one of the people who pointed this out to me.
Looks like we switched sides in this argument... ;-)
Thomas Becker
Zephyr Associates, Inc.
Zephyr Cove, NV
___
approach, and it's simpler and more
user-friendly. Unless I'm missing something...
Thomas Becker
Zephyr Associates, Inc.
Zephyr Cove, NV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March M
e looking for.
> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> I can see this VERY useful to some, but probably not
> widely useful.
In view of the emphasis on "very," I'll count that as
a yes vote.
Thomas Becker
Zephyr Associates, Inc.
Zephyr Cove, NV
framework for doing this. I recently noticed that the
ready-to-use boost now provide almost everything that
we use, with the exception of the combining iterator.
But this is a very important one for us, hence the
proposed submission.
Please comment.
Tho
