Re: [boost] Giving names to formal parameters of lambda expressions: a named placeholder trick.

From: shunsuke (pstade.mb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 17:18:08

Eric Niebler wrote:
> shunsuke wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> That doesn't appear to be the case here, does it? Have you benchmarked 
>>> compile times?
>> Not yet.
>> Anyway I probably find the best way.
>> I'm making return_of be the main interface.
>> result_of will be demoted to a customization point.
> 
> I confess I haven't followed this discussion closely or had time yet to 
> review Egg, but this doesn't sound right to me. result_of shouldn't be a 
> customization point. It uses a well-known (and now standard) protocol. 
> And I don't know what return_of is for, but at best it's too easily 
> confused with result_of and at worst is needless interface duplication. 

I also thought so, so that I removed return_of from Egg review version.

> Can you explain what's going on here?

gpd's `compose` example is cool, so that I want something like this:

   return_of<T_uncurry(T_curry2(F))>::type c = ...;

Anyway return_of is a syntax sugar around result_of.
Is this a needless duplication?

Regards,

-- 
Shunsuke Sogame