Re: [boost] Re: Review Request: FC++

From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 15:13:44

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> My next comment:
>
>    lambda(X)[ let[ Y == X %plus% 3,
>                    F == minus[2]
>               ].in[
>                 F[Y]
>               ]
>             ]
>
> a. Is there a *reason* that square brackets have to be used for
>    postfix function args in lambdas?

Because the "," operator wouldn't work if you use parentheses, and you'd
be stuck with lots of overloads of operator() instead of one operator[].

> b. It  seems like
>
>    lambda(X)[ let[ Y == X %plus% 3,
>                    F == minus[2]
>               ],
>               F[Y]
>             ]
>
>    would be a little sweeter, syntactically speaking.

I disagree with this. The "let" introduces new variable bindings within
the scope after the ".in". I think if FC++ is to remain "true" to existing
functional languages, it should keep the ".in".

        Doug