Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-28 07:31:32

----- Mensaje original -----
De: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Domingo, Marzo 28, 2004 7:41 am
Asunto: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

> JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Hi Jeff
> >
> > ----- Mensaje original -----
> > De: Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>
> > Fecha: Sábado, Marzo 27, 2004 4:55 pm
> > Asunto: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Indexed Set
> >
> >
> >> // why doesn't this work?
> >> //typedef nth_iterator_type<date_to_string_bimap,2>::type 
> to_map_itr;>
> > It is 
> >
> > typedef nth_iterator_type<date_to_string_bimap,1>::type to_map_itr;
> >
> > Index numbering is 0-based. I think this is the
> > only problem in the program. If you have further
> > problems please tell me so.
> 
> Not having looked at the proposal at all, I still think I should raise
> the usual concerns about "metafunctions" not accepting type
> parameters, which don't play nice with MPL and lambda expressions.
> 

IMHO nth_iterator_type and familiy are user-level
facilities (similar vg to Boost.Tuple get<>) and accepting
mpl integral constants instead of raw constants does
not make much sense here. Please somebody correct me
if I'm wrong.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo