On 12/28/2010 11:43 AM, Thomas Heller wrote: > 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)>
Have you tried that? Callable transforms don't work that way. It would have to be: lazy<at<_value>(_state)> Blech. >> 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 Still think so? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
