From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-22 22:00:16
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>> 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.
> hmmm.. Fusion is a bit wasted on strings.
No disrespect intended. I never spent much time processing strings is all.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk