From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-27 17:12:25
"Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I'll have to get back to you on that one. I don't think there's a
>> nice way, yet.
> Actually, I think there is. There is a nested template called
> "argument_pack" that /seems/ to do the right thing, but it's
> undocumented. And the function-call operators do not use it to declare
> their return types, so it's anybody's guess whether they're always
> There's also a nested template called "bind", but it's not clear what it
> is for, or how it differs from "argument_pack".
We're taking care of it.
>>> Another feature request: it would be nice if parameters<> were a
>>> valid MPL sequence that I could manipulate with MPL algorithms.
>> It already is an MPL sequence.
> No, it's not. An argument pack is an MPL sequence, but a
> parameters<> instantiation is not.
Oh, I see. What would you use that capability for?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk