Subject: Re: [boost] [phoenix3] at_c
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-29 09:48:30
On 7/29/10 3:34 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> I'm not sure why phoenix2 implemented it using the extension
>> mechanism instead of a plain phoenix function. In phoenix3,
>> I suggest making it a phoenix function. Oh, and I also suggest
>> dealing with const/non-consts and returning references as well.
> I implemented phoenix::at_c the same way as it was done with phoenix2.
> Have a look here:
> I think the reason why it was (and is done) this way, is to supply N
> as a template parameter, not a parameter to the lazy function.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for reminding me.
-- 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