----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ----- 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. On second thought, I see you have a point. If f is a functor, you'd want ref(x)() to dispatch to x's operator(). Of course that does not work now. Hmmm.... Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
