Re: [boost] [functors] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [functors] proposal
From: Piotr Wygocki (vwygos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 04:03:35

I've done some research and found nontemplate comparison structs (less,
greater...) here:

./boost/log/utility/functional/logical.hpp

Sorry for confusion.
Should we move it to ./boost/utility ?

Regards,

Piotr

On 23 October 2013 15:10, Piotr Wygocki <vwygos_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Sure, but
>
> 1) Not everybody can construct the class using make_Algorithm.
> (decltype(make_Algorithm()) looks weird).
> 2) You need many overloads of make_Algorithm function (the number of
> overloads equals number of arguments + 1).
>     In my solution you need only one overload.
>
> Regards,
>
> Piotr
>
>
> On 23 October 2013 15:01, Krzysztof Czainski <1czajnik_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> 2013/10/23 Piotr Wygocki <vwygos_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> > I'd like to reestablish my use case. My previous post was messy
>> (sorry!).
>> > We've got a class which can be modified by some functors.
>> > This functors have default values:
>> >
>> >   template <typename SomeAction =  SkipFunctor, typename StopCondidtion
>> > =ReturnFalseFunctor>
>> >   struct Algorithm {
>> >       Algorithm(SomeAction action = SomeAction(), StopCondidtion =
>> > StopCondition());
>> >
>> >   };
>> >
>> > Could you solve this using constructions from phoenix?
>> > The second question is of course: is this a good design?
>> >
>>
>>  Aha,
>>
>> so would something like removing the defaults from the class Algorithm,
>> and
>> providing a set of make_Algorithm functions solve your problem?
>>
>> HTH,
>> Kris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>
>
>