From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-10 05:58:08
Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I find the metafunctions in the library not as straightforward as they
>> should be. On the one hand, it seems nearly all of the metafunctions are
>> the same in functionality and use, simply providing the result type of
>> the various functions in the library. Then there is something like
>> fusion::result_of::value_of that does not correspond to any function.
>> Why? Of what function exactly is this the result? I think metafunctions
>> like this should be in the plain fusion namespace.
> I retrospect, all metafunctions originally resided in the namespace
> fusion::meta. Right now, there's a multitude of namespaces for different
> types of metafunctions in Fusion. There's result_of, there's traits,
> there's extension. Thinking back now, the original "meta" namespace
> might have been the right choice after all. It does not introduce a
> confusion as to what to use for what ("hey, what namespace is XXX in?").
I don't think that's the problem. I think Eric was saying the
classification of that particular metafunction into namespace
result_of didn't seem to be consistent with your other choices.
-- 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