Re: [boost] [fusion] unpack into constructor?

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-15 17:19:42

Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> Why is there a need to detect a default constructor?
>>> (I probably snipped away too much context...)
>>>
>>> A generic function object that constructs an arbitrary type would have
>>> to know (unless having variadic templates, or being able to define
>>> operator() as a nonmember function template).
>> Umm. Why?
> 
> OK, in the bind case nullary operator() can just be omitted (if there 
> are no parameters there's no point to use bind in the first place).
> 
> But for the Fusion sequence case that wrapper would have to be entirely 
> generic (IOW allow nullary calls if there is an appropriate 
> constructor), because the sequence can be empty.

No. I just noticed it just works fine without - sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Tobias