Re: [boost] [fusion] More quanfusion

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-13 20:30:49

"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:eea6t1$esb$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> 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.

There is no other right place.

What I mean is, fusion is kind of important to C++, hence , fusion is the right 
place.

regards
Andy Little