From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 20:57:04
David Abrahams wrote:
> Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>I think the benefits of the variant< type-seq > syntax as equivalent
>>to variant< type-seq[0], type-seq[1], ... > far outweigh the benefits
>>of making variant directly store what should in my opinion be an empty
>>type.
>>
>>IMO, all templates with 'variadic' template parameter lists should
>>adopt this F< type-seq > == F< type-seq[0], type-seq[1], ... >
>>convention.
>
> Interesting idea. But in the end, types should be types should be
> types. I don't want types with special properties having unique
> behavior when used as template parameters. That would eventually
> break all generic metaprogramming.
I think that may be a bit extreme. Type sequences seem to me a rather
unique exception...
> Consider the syntax currently being discussed by the committee for
> doing the same sort of thing with tuple types at runtime:
>
> f(some-tuple...)
> == f(at<0>(some-tuple), at<1>(some-tuple), ... )
>
> That would lead to:
>
> F<type-seq...>
> == F< type-seq[0], type-seq[1], ... >
>
> I rather like that symmetry.
Wait, so does this mean you agree or disagree with me? I'm confused.
Eric