From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 21:42:57
Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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
> unique exception...
You can't go around making exceptions in the type system lightly.
>> 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.
I agree strongly that it's a useful capability and disagree strongly
that it should happen without a special syntax (in this case "...").
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk