> Just because a type is a Fusion sequence, that doesn't mean it has > boost::fusion as an associated namespace. I'm asking why > boost::fusion::operator< is in the overload set.
Ohh, sorry, I misunderstood. That's a good question indeed. However, I have no answer, yet. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com > > Eric > > Sent via tiny mobile device > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Hartmut Kaiser" <hartmut.kai...@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:55:16 > To: 'Eric Niebler'<e...@boostpro.com> > Cc: 'Spirit Development'<spirit-de...@lists.sourceforge.net>; 'Christopher > Schmidt'<mr.chr.schm...@online.de>; 'proto'<email@example.com> > Subject: RE: [Spirit-devel] [Spirit Development] Bug in today's > boost_trunk -- ambiguous operator > > > > > > I'm currently running the Fusion tests to see whether the additional > > > 'typename Enable = void' break anything. But I expect everything to > > > work - Yep everything is fine. > > > > > > Eric, would you be willing to add the specializations above to Proto's > > > Fusion adaptation code? > > > > Doable, but I would feel better if these were documented customization > > points of Fusion. At least move them out of the detail namespace. > > Agreed, and I believe, doable. > > > Note that if we had Concepts, the Fusion operators would be restricted > to > > models of IsComparable, which presumably would require that each element > > of the sequence could be compared and that the result was convertible to > > bool. By that definition, a Proto expression is *not* a model of > > IsComparable. What you're asking me (and everyone else) to do is to > > explicitly state that my type does *not* model the concept. It might be > > expedient in this case, but it feel vaguely wrong to me. > > I'm agreeing on all points. > > > I'm still curious why an operator in the Fusion namespace is even being > > considered. How did boost::fusion become an associated namespace of > > spirit::qi::rule? > > The qi::rule is a proto expression and as such a fusion sequence. The > default fusion::detail::enable_comparison checks whether the operands are > (const) fusion sequences, which makes rule a, b, c = a > b; a valid > operation on Fusion sequences. > > Regards Hartmut > --------------- > http://boost-spirit.com > > _______________________________________________ proto mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto