From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-22 21:18:04
Andy Little wrote:
> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Andy Little wrote:
>>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> AFAICT the name ftag should be changed to something more descriptive
>>>> and more certainly unique, e.g. boost_fusion_iterator_tag. Is there
>>>> a reason it needs to be so short?
>>> Why make such a trivial change to the interface post review? AFAICS now is
>>> late, and will cause unnecessary pain to users.. like myself.
>> Well, actually, it shouldn't be a part of the interface.
>> Here, I'm used to calling it the f#%$tag :) It's not supposed
>> to be for public consumption, and I intend to enforce that.
>> Either way, it's not a good name (especially for minors. ;)
>> and it must be changed.
> And BTW its pretty public in the 'make your own iterator" part of the docs.
Yeah. That's unfortunate. I asked Dan to fix it. Anyway, I suggest you
do the right thing: specialize tag_of.
> So far I have made 5 fusion style iterators. Next is the matrix minor iterator,
> which extracts minors from a matrix, as a prelude to extracting cofactors.
> Fusion::Views are wonderful things ....
Views are wonderful things. If you remember, I mentioned this idea
about a const string library using Fusion like views. I'm betting
such a library will rock in terms of performance.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk