Eric Niebler wrote: > On 12/28/2010 5:39 AM, Thomas Heller wrote: >> I just saw that you added functional::at. >> I was wondering about the rationale of your decision to make it a non >> template. >> My gut feeling would have been to have proto::functional::at<N>(seq) >> and not proto::functional::at(seq, N). > > Think of the case of Phoenix placeholders, where in the index is a > parameter: > > when< terminal<placeholder<_> >, _at(_state, _value) >
vs: when<terminal<placeholder<_> >, _at<_value>(_state)> > For the times when the index is not a parameter, you can easily do: > > _at(_state, mpl::int_<N>()) vs: _at<mpl::int_<N> >(_state) just wondering ... the second version looks more "natural" and consistent _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
