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 >>> attaching the Renumber example, reworked to use let. > <snip> >> >> Without having looked at it too much ... this looks a lot like the >> environment in phoenix. Maybe this helps in cleaning it out a bit. > > I tend to doubt it would help clean up the implementation of Phoenix > environments. These features exist on different meta-levels: one > (proto::let) is a feature for compiler-construction (Proto), the other > (phoenix::let) is a language feature (Phoenix). The have roughly the > same purpose within their purview, but as their purviews are separated > by one great, big Meta, it's not clear that they have anything to do > with each other.
*Dough* misunderstanding here. I didn't mean to clean up the phoenix scope expressions with the help of proto::let. I was thinking, maybe proto::let can borrow something from phoenix scopes on a conceptual level. _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
