Subject: Re: [boost] [fusion] [intro] ADAPT_STRUCT extensions
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-15 06:48:28
On 8/13/10 6:10 PM, Stefan Strasser wrote:
> Zitat von Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]>:
>>> finding a name for this feature along the line of "define sequence from
>>> expressions" would also reduce the number of macros. I don't think the
>>> SUB-/DERIVED variants I proposed are needed for this.
>> C'mon guys! We're venturing into the name-game land!
>> If that's the game, then we should shout out why C++ confusingly
>> has "struct" and "class" anyway which both have very little nuance.
>> I don't want to go there. Sorry. This is not going to be another
>> bike-shed issue.
> the name caused both david and me to fundamentally misunderstand the
> macro, and I'm supposed to explain to the library user that it is the
> absolute wrong thing to do to adapt a class using ADAPT_CLASS.
And I still don't understand the reason why. You mentioned that because
it does not return a reference it should not be called a "class" adaptor.
But I can't figure out why a reference to an actual object should
be a requirement.
> that's a lot of confusion for a still undocumented bike-shed.
I'd say the confusion stems from the lack of documentation and you
guys jumping to early conclusions.
Anyway... for the sake of moving forward, let me open the door to
name suggestions. I can probably suggest ADAPT_ADT.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net