Re: [boost] [fusion] Re: more help with unfused_typed (previously off-list)

From: Christian Holmquist (c.holmquist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-18 08:06:11

> That might be an interesting option for 'unfused_typed'.
> But the concern is not about a particular feature of 'unfused_type' --
> error handling might have gotten worse for all 'unfused_*' adapters.
> Also, all other 'unfused_*' adapters are inherently variadic (for which
> this property is pretty much self-evident).

unfused_typed differs from the rest of the unfused_* adapters, since it's
the only one not generating an arbitrary sequence (at least, this is the way
I would prefer it to behave). Wouldn't it solve the problem by simply not
create operators for anything except for the supplied Sequence in this case?
Then any unary function object could have its result type calculated with
result<Self(Sequence)>, regardless of which unfused_* adapter wrapping it.
When using unfused_typed ATM I have to describe my Sequence twice, once for
the adapter and once for my functor, only to gurantee no other sequence than
expected is created. This doesn't seem right.

> BTW: There is no default initialization of Sequence elements. If there
> are less arguments you get a shorter Sequence.
Of course, don't know what I was thinking here (since this is _the_ reason I
wrote you in the first place =)).

Regards,