On 04/06/2012 17:52, Eric Niebler wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the "right type". If you want it held by
shared_ptr to manage lifetime, then shared_ptr is the right type, it
seems to me. Or use a wrapper around a shared_ptr, whichever.


I want all tree manipulation and transformation algorithms to see the value as if it were a T and not a shared_ptr<T> or ref_holder<T>.

shared_ptr<T> is the right type to contain the terminal in the proto nullary expression, but in that particular case it is not the logical type of the value associated to that leaf node.

I want to be able to manipulate the tree using straight Proto tools (otherwise I might as well not use Proto at all -- the point is to have a well-defined de-facto standard framework for tree manipulation).

Those algorithms should not need to know how the value is stored in the expressions. It is just noise as far as they're concerned.

Alternatively I'll need to provide substitutes for value, result_of::value and _value, and ban those from my code and the programming interface, telling developers to use mybettervalue instead of proto's. That saddens me a bit.
_______________________________________________
proto mailing list
proto@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto

Reply via email to