From: Andreas Launila <ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2007-06-07T22:35:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Gecode/R - Request for syntax feedback

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> 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.
> 

Your conclusion is correct. But my intent with the text is that we have
to wrap enumerables before use, I'm not sure how to reach the other
interpretation.

-- 
Andreas Launila