From: "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
[...]
> > 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?
My thoughts with my "independent observer/low-tolerance library user" hat on
are:
* A good lambda library should already have a low-fat, low-dependency
var(x), something like
template<class E> struct basic_lambda_expression {}; // tag
template<class T> class var_expression: public basic_lambda_expression<
var_expression<T> >
{
public:
typedef T & result_type;
// obvious implementation
};
* Two good lambda libraries sharing the same boost:: namespace will share
basic_lambda_expression<> and recognize each other's lambdas. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
