On 8/9/2010 5:39 PM, Manjunath Kudlur wrote:
>> 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 forgo
> 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
(Sorry for the delay. It was a crazy weekend.)
On 8/6/2010 8:21 PM, Manjunath Kudlur wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Let me understand. Your goal is to have something like spirit subrules,
>> except the subrules are like ordinary functions, and the functions
>> should be invokable by name, is that
> Careful here. You want BOOST_PROTO_AUTO, or else put these things in a
> domain defined such that intermediate expressions are not held by
> reference. Or else, make declare_module an instance of a type with an
> overloaded operator[] that deep-copies it's rhs to avoid all lifetime
> issues. Prot
On 8/6/2010 7:29 PM, Manjunath Kudlur wrote:
> I had asked boost-users for suggestions on how to define mutually
> recursive functions in a DSEL. Here is the original thread.
> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2010/07/60488.php
>
> I am thinking about a solution inspired by Spirit subrules, that
