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.
> 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?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk