From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-10 06:15:47
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> I can't ask my library's users to register types.
>>> Why not? We all want decltype and auto in the language dont we?
>>> BOOST_TYPEOF is the closest we have. Show your users how to use it
>>> while we wait for language support.
>> Because I want to serve my users, not force them to learn about an
>> interim solution that they won't need when the real feature comes out.
> Not long to wait then, assuming upgrading is viable.... ;-)
Should I assume you're just baiting me, or what? How soon do you
think everyone will be using a C++0x compiler supporting
> Meanwhile I have found Boost.Typeof really useful now.
I didn't say it wasn't useful; only that it's inappropriate for my
>> Furthermore, it's _my_ library that needs result_of, so basically I
>> would be telling users, "if you get a cryptic error message that
>> looks like ___________, find some of the types in it and register
>> them with this cryptic macro."
> The error messages re lack of registration are not that bad IMO.
Bad for you and bad for a user are two totally distinct things.
> The only problems I had was deciding what types to register when
> using mpl::transform IIRC.
>> I'd rather that people enjoy my library than have them vent
>> frustration at me about how unusable Boost is.
> The last time I tried to use lambda I seem to remember I had to do a
> lot more than just register my types with one cryptic macro. I had
> to map my own whacky type deduction scheme to lambdas whacky type
> deduction scheme. See below --^-->
The difference is that IIUC lambda makes some reasonable assumptions
when it doesn't know the answer -- assumptions that are appropriate to
my use case, like that subtracting two values of one type yields the
same type -- whereas typeof does not, and cannot.
And anyway, as I've been saying, I'm *not talking about deducing the
return type of an invoked lambda expression*. I'm just trying to
capture the function type. Maybe Boost.Typeof is actually enough for
that job; I don't know.
-- 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