From: Pavel Chikulaev (pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 15:17:48
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> What about templates with more than one parameter:
> template<typename U, typename V>
> LAZY_OP(Matrix_ + Matrix__<U, V>()); // unprotected comma
Right now I can tell you only one solution:
template<typename U, typename V>
LAZY_OP((Matrix_ + Matrix__<U, V>()));
How do you like it?
>>> Also, I believe Fusion (the sucessor to Tuple) would be a valuable
>> Is it (same as)(old version of) Tuple?
> No. (What would be the point, then?) It provides extensible tuple-like
Oops. My bad - bad english.
> sequences, together with a collectin of algorithms and adapters, similar
> to MPL.
I've not looked at Fusion's algorithms but I'm pretty sure that it won't
help me with parsing operators tree and choosing the most conforming
> I think it's not documented, but last time I looked at it, the design was
> enough to MPL that if you knew MPL and Tuple it would be easy to start
> The reason I though Fusion would be relevant is that in an expression
> library, the information about a complex expression that you need to
> maintain in
> order for it to be evaluated once it is complete is:
> 1. A list of all the concrete objects which particpate in the expression
> 2. The structure of the expression.
> Fusion may provide the infrastructure for this. In the iostreams library,
> I used
> something like a homemade tuple; but for a more ambitious implementation
> expression templates I would want to use existing tools as much as
I've used in my library home-made
template<typename FirstArgT, typename Op, typename SecondArgT>
template<typename Op, typename ArgT>
I don't think that Fusion will help me here, but I'll take a look at it.
-- Pavel Chikulaev
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk