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

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 19:59:07

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Brian McNamara
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:46 AM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today 
> (ends 2/23)
> 
> 
> 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.)

It looks like it would be pretty easy.  Do you want me to do it for you?

Regards,
Paul Mensonides