On Tuesday 27 July 2010 15:04:30 Alp Mestanogullari wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:01 PM, joel falcou <joel.fal...@lri.fr> wrote: > > Do people think such stuff (maybe in proto::tree:: or smthg ?) be useful > > additions ? > > Definitely. We're dealing with a compile-time AST, but this is still > an AST and we often have to apply transformations to ASTs. Thus, > having higher order metafunctions in Proto just asking us for the > transform to apply on each node or somesuch, would be useful > additions!
Especially when thinking about phoenix3. People might find it easier to think of tree traversals instead of proto transforms, grammars and such. It is at least the case for me. _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
