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"
> 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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk