Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Generic type inferencer function?
From: Jeff Flinn (jeffrey.flinn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-24 10:21:40

On 12/21/15 9:14 AM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 18 December 2015 at 10:37, Stefan Seefeld <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 18.12.2015 11:20, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
>>>> Am I overlooking a generic boost::make<something>() of this general form?
>>> Given the small amount of code potentially to be reused, what would be
>>> the advantage of having a generic version ? The goal of abstraction
>>> should be clarity, but more often than not, generalizing code rips off
>>> not only unnecessary details but also its meaning, making the code
>>> harder, not easier, to understand.
>> I disagree. The make_* functions are just noise, and I'd love to see a
>> generic one. While return type deduction has made it somewhat easier to
>> write these functions, a generic one would be superior.
> Nevin speaks truth: the make_SomeTemplate() functions in our code base
> are just boilerplate.

IIRC, doesn't boost phoenix have a 'construct' function that is
effectively a make<...> method. I'm sure I've used that at previous


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at