From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 19:59:07
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Brian McNamara
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:46 AM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today
> (ends 2/23)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:04:16PM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> > Here's one. In the docs, you say:
> >
> > (Now is a good time to mention that FC++ supports functoids of 0-3
> > parameters. The fullN, funN, and c_fun_type classes have
> only been defined
> > for functions of up to three arguments.)
> >
> > Why only three? Experience with Phoenix with Spirit shows
> that this is
> > not enough.
>
> Experience with FC++ has shown that it is enough. But I
> suppose it all depends on what domains/problems you are
> working on. :)
>
> > Why hard-code the limit? I used to hate the preprocessor,
> > but now, I always use boost.preprocessor to generate
> redundant code,
> > hence, not having a hard coded arity limit. Is there a technical
> > problem not to support more?
>
> Probably not; I just have not done the work. (There are only
> so many hours you can spend "boostifying" before you decide
> it's time to stop and put the library up for review.)
>
> (Actually, if you look at the code for "full3"
> http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~yannis/fc++/FC++.1.5/full.h
> I am not sure that the currying stuff can be so easily macro-ized.
> But maybe.)
It looks like it would be pretty easy. Do you want me to do it for you?
Regards,
Paul Mensonides