Re: [boost] MPL's "round" lambda

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-19 08:00:05

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Like Dirk, I too am wondering what the point is,
>> beyond syntactic sugar.
>
> What is the point of what exactly? Of yet another lambda notation?
> Of round brackets? Of my post? :)
>
> Anyway, there wasn't much of the point besides demonstrating that
>something like this is easily implementable and could have some
>practical use - may be outside the MPL as well. After all, people has
>been complaining about "ugly template brackets" for years ;).

Actually I think you gave some pretty good arguments for this in your
reply to Dirk's question.

>> I notice the namespace "mpl::v2_1" in the code.
>
> Yes, I needed a separate scope to put things into to avoid conflicts as all
> new lambda's arguments are metafunction classes, not metafunctions. 

Yep, they'd have to be.

> It (the namespace) doesn't carry much of intent besides that :).

I figured.

>> Shouldn't we have completed MPL documentation before moving on to
>> things like this?
>
> FWIW, I am not moving on to anything. I coded up the above in ~1
> hour as a proof of a sudden idea that seemed like a novel and viable
> technique.

Sorry, I got the impression it was going to be version 2.1 of the MPL
code.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution