Re: [boost] [switch_] Case Concept [ was Re: [Boost-users] formal review of Switch library...]

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-13 03:25:35

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>>         (c0, c1, ... cN)
>>
>> (note: Application of comma operator ;-)).
>>
>>
>> ?! Why doesn't it just return another (compound) Case object and leave 
>> the Sequence an unspecified implementation detail...

<...>

> 
> Same here.
> 
>>>    * case_<I>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
> 
> Change:
> 
>     * cases<SI>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
> 
>> We could have this case swallow the index during function invocation, as 
>> for manual application we probably don't want to have it. I think it's 
>> typical and easy enough to just model the Case concept directly...
> 
> Forgive me, I think my headache is getting in the way and I can't
> seem to parse this sentence properly. Could you please explain a
> bit more?

That sentence is a bit unclear, too.

I meant: Not forwarding the index.

If 'switch_' takes a Case Object for the cases, it might be easy enough 
to just implement that concept rather than using generators.

Get well!

Regards,
Tobias