From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-17 20:43:49
Sohail Somani wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] on
> behalf of Peter Dimov
> 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.
> I understand what you mean here but didn't you say that the whole
> thing would be easier if one was to use a fusion tuple as L? I
> assumed that would have been the acceptable solution since you
> suggested that yourself. I would expect that making bind switch to
> tuple would be less work and more beneficial than introducing another
> sequence type (which I think is a lot more testing). FWIW, I'd be
> less interested in adding a new sequence type.
I understand Peter. It can be done non-intrusively. Fusion(2) was
designed with a requirement that you should be able to "adapt"
any type of tuple or tuple-like (even plain structs) sequences.
I did that with boost.tuple, for example. One reason is backward
compatibility. Boost.tuple already has a tremendous user base. I
do not want to cause disruption by replacing Boost.tuple with
fusion's native sequences. That would case disruption in many ways.
So would replacing boost.bind's tuples. Adaptation is the way to go.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk