From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 13:26:18
Larry Evans wrote:
> On 04/27/2007 03:25 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Larry Evans wrote:
>>> why not
>>> do the following renames:
>>> proto::_ -> proto::true_
>>> proto::not_<_> -> proto::false_
>> No, proto::_ is a placeholder. And proto::not_<> can logically negate
>> any grammar, not just proto::_.
> Actaully, the following is what I had in mind:
> namespace boost
> namespace proto
> : _
> : not_<true_>
> }}//exit boost::proto namespace
> Why? Because I think (I haven't tested it) the same
> laws for mpl::bool_ and it's associated operations:
> would apply to proto's true_, false_, not_,....
I guess I don't see how these types would be used. In what contexts
would using proto::true_ make more sense than using proto::_ ?
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk