Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 ;).
Actually I think you gave some pretty good arguments for this in your
reply to Dirk's question.
>> 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.
Yep, they'd have to be.
> It (the namespace) doesn't carry much of intent besides that :).
I figured.
>> 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.
Sorry, I got the impression it was going to be version 2.1 of the MPL
code.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
