From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-14 13:49:22
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>>>> (c0,c1,...,cN) being just another 'Case' rather than a 'Sequence'.
>>> o..k... Hmm.. so how would the resulting case object for this
>>> expression look like:
>>> case_c<1>(f1), case_c<2>(f2)
>> template< class SeqCases >
>> struct sequenced_case
> Sounds good to me! I like it. So, this involves the variation where
> a case has an MPL sequence of labels. I knew there's something in
> that that I like. Intuition, I guess. That is also why I use the
> name case_ regardless of number. A compound case is just another
> case anyway. Does not matter how many labels it serves.
> Not sure how, implementation-wise, this works for Steven. Steven?
> If this pans out, I'll refine the concept one more time.
It's trivial to implement:
#define BOOST_SWITCH_CASE(z, n, data)\
case mpl::at_c<typename C::labels, n>::type::value:
My concern is
1) fall-through can't easily be added to the interface.
2) It seems like just another interface for a fusion sequence.
Is sequenced_case to be public? If so, we need another
concept for its interface...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk