From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-06-07T21:54:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Gecode/R - Request for syntax feedback

On Jun 7, 2007, at 3:58 AM, Andreas Launila wrote:

> Andreas Launila wrote:
>> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Andreas Launila wrote:
>>>> Something more on the form of the rest of the syntax
>>>> would probably be
>>>>
>>>> constrain element(array, x).equal(y)
>>>>
>>>> It just doesn't read as well to me. Maybe there's a better way of
>>>> representing constraints where the function has to take multiple
>>>> arguments, such as returning an helper with only one method,  
>>>> i.e. as
>>>> follows.
>>>>
>>>> constrain element(x).in(array).equal(y)
>>> I would say avoiding core class modification is important.  If that
>>> means we need element(), that's probably just a price we need to  
>>> pay, in
>>> my opinion.
>>>
>>> See my earlier comment about proxy objects for another option  
>>> though.
>>>
>>
>> I will write up some similar syntax examples with proxy objects to  
>> see
>> how big the difference is.
>>
>
> Examples: http://gecoder.lokorin.org/dev/wiki/ 
> Syntax_test#Proxy_objects

That page talks about how we loose some convenience in that we need  
to now wrap simple IntVars.  I'm not sure that's 100% necessary  
though.  If we built the class, we should be able to count on it  
having what we need.  The wrapper could just be for Enumerables and/ 
or custom data structures, I think.  Double-check my logic there though.

James Edward Gray II