|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-03 15:47:35
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Besides the error, that's the general way to go? (when I can only use
> tuple/bind of course)
Defining the function object directly without going through bind, as
suggested by Bryan Ewbank, may be easier. The pseudocode is trivial:
struct pipe
{
tuple tp;
operator()( A1 & a1 )
{
return tp[0]( pipe( tp[rest] )( a1 ) );
}
};
but the actual implementation may be hard. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk