|
Boost : |
From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-23 09:48:49
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> I've been talking with Aleksey recently about how to improve the
> syntactic situation without losing the separation of concerns that we
> get, but we didn't come up with anything convincingly better. I think
> a long time ago the for_each parameter used to look like:
>
> class f
> {
> template <class T>
> struct apply
> {
> static void execute() {...};
> };
> };
>
> IOW, a metafunction class with a nested 'execute' function. However
> that's not really any better syntactically, it has problems carrying
> state, and it's anti-idiomatic.
Why don't we have
mpl::list<int, float, double, std::string> list_of_types;
for_each(list_of_types.begin(), list_of_types.end(), f);
?
Then an unqualified for_each call can handle type sequences, heterogeneous
containers (e.g., tuple), and run-time sequences (e.g., vector). It's been
done before, elsewhere, so why don't we do it in MPL?
Doug
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk