Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-17 19:46:55

Sohail Somani wrote:
> Hi,
> I've attached a diff against HEAD for converting list0 and list1 in
> the bind implementation to using fusion::tuple (instead of storageN)
> as was recently suggested in the users mailing list by Peter Dimov.
> The main reason for doing this was to allow easy iteration over the
> list element types so that things like minimum arity for a bind
> expression can be computed. The solution I suggested was pretty hacky
> to say the least but it worked ;-).
> Anyway it should be pretty easy to do (if not just tedious). The
> tests compile and pass here for these changes (g++-4.1). Do the
> changes look sensible? The only sticking point seems to be the
> accept/visitor thing that appears to be unused except for in boost
> signals. Should this also be carried over? I can complete a patch and
> submit a track item in the next couple of days.

I need to warn you that there is very little chance for your patch to be
accepted in this form. Extending _bi::listN (I'd suggest making them
conforming MPL or fusion sequences) needs to be done non-intrusively and in
a separate header.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at