----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think you misunderstood; sorry for not being clear. Heh ;) My mistake. I just woke up and I replied in haste. Of course you have a point. > ref(x)(...) can mean two different things, both reasonable. One is to simply > return x. The other is to return x(...). The convention we have adopted so > far in bind and function is to treat ref as if ref(x)(...) returns x(...). > This has nothing to do with spirit using bind, function, or lambda. It's > about the semantics of ref. > > In fact, if you use ref(b) as above, you now have no way to express the > other operation, make if_p store a reference to the function object: > > if_p(ref(f)) > [ > ] > > This is necessary when f has state or cannot be copied. Ok, I understand. Anyway, do you have a suggestion? Perhaps what I need then is a low-fat var(x) and val(x). Thoughts? Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
