> Actually, I think your users will be forced to do: (module->*func)(...) > because of the precedence. That's pretty ugly. But I see where you're > going. Your scheme could be made to work as you describe, I think.
Yes, you are right, I had forgotten about the precedence. > I'm left wondering why you want this, though. In what way is it better > than just defining some mutually recursive functions? How would you do that? Do you have some other mechanism in mind? To be clear, I want the ability to "name" some proto expressions, and freely "call" these expressions in other expressions in a mutually recursive manner, just like in the example I have shown. My use case is to provide the user with a set of data-parallel primitives that he can freely compose to form bigger functions. Manjunath > -- > Eric Niebler > BoostPro Computing > http://www.boostpro.com > _______________________________________________ > proto mailing list > proto@lists.boost.org > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto > _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
