From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 20:57:04
David Abrahams wrote:
> Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>I think the benefits of the variant< type-seq > syntax as equivalent
>>to variant< type-seq, type-seq, ... > far outweigh the benefits
>>of making variant directly store what should in my opinion be an empty
>>IMO, all templates with 'variadic' template parameter lists should
>>adopt this F< type-seq > == F< type-seq, type-seq, ... >
> Interesting idea. But in the end, types should be types should be
> types. I don't want types with special properties having unique
> behavior when used as template parameters. That would eventually
> break all generic metaprogramming.
I think that may be a bit extreme. Type sequences seem to me a rather
> Consider the syntax currently being discussed by the committee for
> doing the same sort of thing with tuple types at runtime:
> == f(at<0>(some-tuple), at<1>(some-tuple), ... )
> That would lead to:
> == F< type-seq, type-seq, ... >
> I rather like that symmetry.
Wait, so does this mean you agree or disagree with me? I'm confused.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk