From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 13:36:39
On 3/20/07, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Still, for compilers that Boost.Typeof doesn't support, it would be
> > nice if result_of could handle Boost.Lambda at least. More recent
> > libraries and future libraries could consider adopting a previously
> > existing practice (result<F(Args) or sig<tuple<Args> >) that result_of
> > can support without typeof.
> IMO, you have this backwards. Rather than patch result_of to handle
> lambda, lambda function objects should be modified to follow the
> result_of convention. It's now standard, after all.
Good point. I considered doing that, but didn't want to intrude on any
user code out there that follows the current Boost.Lamda convention.
Of course, I don't mind submitting a patch to Boost.Lambda as you
suggest if there's interest. That would help alleviate the problem of
having multiple return type conventions among Boost libraries. I could
also try to patch Fusion. Perhaps, my result_of patch could still be
useful for providing backwards compatibility for current Boost.Lambda
style user defined functors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk