Re: [boost] [fusion] map_gen interest

From: Sergei Politov (spolitov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-06 00:16:01

Steven Watanabe <watanabesj <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> AMDG
> 
> Sergei Politov wrote:
> > For provided example, the usage of this class is the following:
> > template<class T>
> > struct make_vector {
> > typedef std::vector<T> type;
> > };
> >
> > typedef mstd::map_gen<boost::mpl::vector<int, char>, make_vector>::type
> > my_map;
> >   
> You should probably use an mpl lambda expression
> 
> mstd::map_gen<boost::mpl::vector<int, char>, make_vector<boost::mpl::_1> 
>  >::type
  Sorry, I'm not very familiar with mpl::lambda, as far as I understand to 
write make_vector<boost::mpl::_> I should support mpl::lambda in make_vector.
If so it is not neccessary, as soon as it is just example, and it does not 
belong to internal part of map_gen.
 
> > In other words it takes some fusion sequence and metafunction.
> MPL sequence?  There shouldn't be any runtime information associated 
> with the key.
  I meant: "fully conforming fusion sequences". As soon as it is possible to 
adapt mpl sequence to fusion sequence, I suggest it is better to require fusion 
sequence concept rather mpl sequence concept. Even runtime information is not 
used. It produces no overhead, but makes map_gen more flexible.

> 
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
>