Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today (ends 2/23)

From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 13:46:23

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:04:16PM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Here's one. In the docs, you say:
> 
> (Now is a good time to mention that FC++ supports functoids of 0-3 
> parameters. The fullN, funN, and c_fun_type classes have only been defined 
> for functions of up to three arguments.)
> 
> Why only three? Experience with Phoenix with Spirit shows that this
> is not enough. 

Experience with FC++ has shown that it is enough.  But I suppose it all
depends on what domains/problems you are working on.  :)

> Why hard-code the limit? I used to hate the preprocessor,
> but now, I always use boost.preprocessor to generate redundant code,
> hence, not having a hard coded arity limit. Is there a technical problem
> not to support more?

Probably not; I just have not done the work.  (There are only so many
hours you can spend "boostifying" before you decide it's time to stop
and put the library up for review.)

(Actually, if you look at the code for "full3"
   http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/FC++.1.5/full.h
I am not sure that the currying stuff can be so easily macro-ized.  
But maybe.)

> I might be missing something significant though. But I recall that
> this is also one thing I didn't like when I first reviewed FC++
> a few years ago (I was also hindered by LL's limit of 10, IIRC).

10!  Except for code-generators, or people working in very specific
domains, it's hard for me to imagine 10 not being enough.  Wow!

-- 
-Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])