Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-27 16:12:06

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>

> Hmm.. may be the ability to write both 'begin<seq>::iterator' as well as
> 'begin<seq>::type' is indeed a misfeature, and we should stick to simple
> consistent "::type" everywhere.. what do you think?

I agree strongly.

IIRC, in the previous MPL there were some "functions" which computed more
than one return type, though...


> > The thing where the function object itself can change type is
> > actually a neater way to do what I've been trying to do all
> > along. I had the function object calling a Thingy that the
> > user could specialise.
> I like your names :). I am afraid I don't have enough information to
> how different our _applications_ of the tuple algorithms are (but from
> you've said, it seems that they are be different), but my main motivation
> give a function object a possibility to change its type was to allow one
> accumulate internal state on each step of iteration;

Didn't the need for that disappear when you moved to an accumulate-based
algorithm suite?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at