David Abrahams wrote: > Interesting. Like Dirk, I too am wondering what the point is, beyond > syntactic sugar.
What is the point of what exactly? Of yet another lambda notation? Of round brackets? Of my post? :) Anyway, there wasn't much of the point besides demonstrating that something like this is easily implementable and could have some practical use - may be outside the MPL as well. After all, people has been complaining about "ugly template brackets" for years ;). > I notice the namespace "mpl::v2_1" in the code. Yes, I needed a separate scope to put things into to avoid conflicts as all new lambda's arguments are metafunction classes, not metafunctions. It (the namespace) doesn't carry much of intent besides that :). > Shouldn't we have completed MPL documentation before moving on to > things like this? FWIW, I am not moving on to anything. I coded up the above in ~1 hour as a proof of a sudden idea that seemed like a novel and viable technique. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
