Re: [boost] If boost::fusion is the hammer, then what's the nail?

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-14 19:17:38

Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:

>>> The fusion/tuple seems more generic?
>>> Functional languages have curried and uncurried functions.
>>> C++ is considered as a langauge that has "fused and unfused" functions?
>>>
>>> void foo(int, int);       // unfused
>>> void foo(tuple<int,int>); // fused
>>>
>>> Note that functional languages regard unfused one as "tupled"; conFusing :-)
>>>
>>> Well, once an unfused function is converted to fused one,
>>> it is unary.
>>> Some kind of job will be easy; e.g. function composing.
>> Kinda con-fusing :-) But once you get the essence, it really
>> makes sense :P
> 
> FYI, here is 'compose' implementation using con-fusing.
> It might be no practical use, though. :-)
> http://tinyurl.com/y9uamg

Yep, I know perfectly what you mean. I do that all the time
(e.g Phoenix, which is actually one of the motivations behind
Fusion).

Pardon the con-fusing pun. It was all intentional :-)

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net