Subject: Re: [boost] phoenix::bind
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-04 19:36:13
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>> lambda(_x, _y)[ let. _z = _x + _y, _z * _z ]
>>>> I think that the implicit let will be much less of an issue in a
>>> Doesn't that imply that _a, _b, ... have to be enumerated in the
>>> definition of let?
>> Not sure I understand.
> let. _z
> let must be an object that has a member called _z.
Right. Now I understand. Now I also understand why you want to be
able to name the locals. Pardon me for being slow. It's been an
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk