[boost] Re: parameters library and rvalue pitfall

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 10:29:43

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Sure. Maybe we should have two, so people who want to do metaprogramming
>>  doesn't have to remove_reference<>?
>>
>>   binding<p, key, default>::type -> T | default
>>   binding_result<p, key, default>::type -> T& | default
>>
>> ?
>
> I don't understand why you'd want the one without the reference
> type... and -- I'm sure it's not what you want me to focus on -- but I
> don't like the name "binding_result" one bit.
>
> I'm inclined to vote "no" on this one.  It isn't a flexibility that's
> known to be needed.

So far I've just renamed index_result to binding.

> Anyway, I'm inclined that we not try to do this by-value return
> thing.  Your thoughts?

Still would like to hear them.

> Also:
>
>   1. for the lazy case we should probably use result_of<F()>::type on the
>      compilers that support it?
>
>   2. We probably also need lazy_binding<p, k, f>::type, right?

Now done.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com