On 11/18/2010 4:56 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
I think Proto transforms need a let statement for storing intermediate
results. Maybe something like this:
struct RenumberFun
: proto::fold
_
, make_pair(fusion::vector0(), proto::_state)
, let
_a(
On 1/29/2011 7:49 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
Bills be damned. I just committed to trunk an implementation of
proto::let, along with tests and reference docs. End-user docs are still
todo.
sigh As often happens, I woke up this morning knowing this code was
broken, so I pulled it. I think I finally
On 12/6/2010 4:50 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
I played with the let transform idea over the weekend. It *may* be
possible to accomplish without the two problems I described above. See
the attached let transform (needs latest Proto trunk). I'm also
attaching the Renumber
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 12/6/2010 4:50 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
I played with the let transform idea over the weekend. It *may* be
possible to accomplish without the two problems I described above. See
the attached let transform (needs latest Proto trunk). I'm also
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 12/7/2010 3:13 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Now they do: T()(e,s,d). Inside T::impl, D had better be the type of d.
Nowhere does the _data transform appear in this code, so changing _data
to be smart about environments and scopes won't save you if
On 11/18/2010 3:31 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 11/18/2010 1:45 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler e...@... writes:
It's REALLY hard. The let context needs to be bundled with the Expr,
State, or Data parameters somehow, but in a way that's transparent. I
don't actually know if it's possible.
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 11/18/2010 3:31 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 11/18/2010 1:45 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Eric Niebler e...@... writes:
It's REALLY hard. The let context needs to be bundled with the Expr,
State, or Data parameters somehow, but in a way that's transparent. I
don't actually
Eric Niebler e...@... writes:
On 11/17/2010 2:18 PM, joel falcou wrote:
On 17/11/10 19:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
See the attached code. I wish I had a better answer. It sure would be
nice to generalize this for other times when new state needs to bubble
up and back down.
Just chiming
On 17/11/10 19:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
See the attached code. I wish I had a better answer. It sure would be
nice to generalize this for other times when new state needs to bubble
up and back down.
Just chiming in. We had the exact same problem in quaff where needed to
carry on a process ID
On 11/17/2010 2:18 PM, joel falcou wrote:
On 17/11/10 19:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
See the attached code. I wish I had a better answer. It sure would be
nice to generalize this for other times when new state needs to bubble
up and back down.
Just chiming in. We had the exact same problem in
10 matches
Mail list logo
