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.
> * 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk