From: Maurizio Vitale (maurizio.vitale_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 12:33:36
On May 9, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> Maurizio Vitale wrote:
>> Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Tough questions. You've touched on a weakness of proto. I hope to
>>> improvements in this area after BoostCon ...
>> I think proto is a very nice addition to boost, and I'm sure with
>> a few touches to make it
>> easier to use for applications different from what it has been
>> designed for it can get
>> rapidly to the point it can be submitted formally.
> Fair. This particular area certainly needs improvement. But are you
> referring to your desire for something like proto::eval() to work even
> when you don't have an expression object to evaluate?
No I was not thinking of that, although it seems very easy to support
from a first look at the current implementation
> I don't consider
> that a common use case.
I didn't mean to imply that you've to support all I need. That
particular feature is probably better done in an
application specific way. I've looked at context.hpp and it should
very easy to steal from it
and I think that way I can accommodate the case when values can be
or run-time values (another one of the mails I've sent, where I have
a need for two transforms for doing
something that should have been simpler.
I don't think you've seen it, maybe because of my clock screw-up at
The main reason I'm throwing my application specific needs out there
is to discover whether there's a proto
way to achieve what I need. If there's I'll use it, otherwise it's up
to you and others in the boost
core team to decide whether something not considered before is
general enough for inclusion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk