----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > The condition is expected to be a functor that returns > > a boolean condition. I was hoping that I can use the > > ref(b) as a functor such that I can write: > > > > bool b; > > > > if_p(ref(b)) > > [ > > parse_this > > ] > > Not a good idea. In lambda terms the above is var(b), not ref(b). We've been > using ref(x) to mean "just like x", i.e. ref(b)() means b(). One day we > might even get that core change that would enable > reference_wrapper<T>::operator T& to be considered in a ref(f)() expression; > for now, we "fake" it in bind, function, etc. I beg to disagree. I do not see that as reasonable. The use of var(b) will bring in tons of scaffolding. This is the main reason why I want to request for the operator(). I've struggled hard to keep the core of Spirit small enough to do micro parsing. I do not wish to force the user to use lambda or phoenix, bind nor function just to do such a trivial operation that can be accomplished by a one-liner in ref(x). Historically, Spirit had a ref(x) that does that identity thingy. It has been made obsolete in favor of boost::ref. I might have to bring it back to life if my request cannot be granted. I see no other way to accomplish ref(x)() for micro-parsing tasks. Regards, Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
