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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk