From: shunsuke (pstade.mb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 17:18:08
Eric Niebler wrote:
> shunsuke wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> That doesn't appear to be the case here, does it? Have you benchmarked
>>> compile times?
>> Not yet.
>> Anyway I probably find the best way.
>> I'm making return_of be the main interface.
>> result_of will be demoted to a customization point.
> I confess I haven't followed this discussion closely or had time yet to
> review Egg, but this doesn't sound right to me. result_of shouldn't be a
> customization point. It uses a well-known (and now standard) protocol.
> And I don't know what return_of is for, but at best it's too easily
> confused with result_of and at worst is needless interface duplication.
I also thought so, so that I removed return_of from Egg review version.
> Can you explain what's going on here?
gpd's `compose` example is cool, so that I want something like this:
return_of<T_uncurry(T_curry2(F))>::type c = ...;
Anyway return_of is a syntax sugar around result_of.
Is this a needless duplication?
-- Shunsuke Sogame
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk