Eric Friedman wrote:
> I am a bit uneasy about any proposal making adding MPL sequence semantics
> to an otherwise-typical value type. If such proposals are implemented, I
> see a significant ambiguity problem arising in generic code: given a type
> T that is an MPL sequence, should we treat it as
David Abrahams wrote:
> That's not (I think) what Alexander had in mind: IIUC he was talking
> about a wrapper over tuples such that:
>
> tuple_sequence
>
> is an MPL sequence. Of course, a better solution would be to
> specialize begin/end so that any Boost tuple is *itself* an MPL
> sequen
