From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 20:30:49
"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Andy Little wrote:
>> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> 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
>> (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.
There is no other right place.
What I mean is, fusion is kind of important to C++, hence , fusion is the right
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk