Re: [boost] [fusion] More quanfusion

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 20:14:27

Andy Little wrote:
> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:eea4i0$8lq$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> 
>> Some of these elements you mentioned do have generic appeal.
>> static_value and advance_iterator looks general enough. plus, minus
>> etc, have overlaps over other "functional" libraries;
> 
> So What? Only Boost.Typeof  binds compile time types to function signatures.
> 
> F* the "functional" type deduction schemes, including mine,lambda, phoenix,
> 
> Boost.Typeof  provides a common syntax via the function return type, and  is the 
> future.
> 
> (Apologies to the 12 year olds reading the list.)
> 
> fusion *must* have type deduction, and Boost.Typeof is the placeholder.

I think you missed my point. I am not arguing against using Boost.Typeof
for plus, minus, etc. I am only stating my apprehension towards adding
a functional module into fusion. It seems not the right place.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net