From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 13:36:39
On 3/20/07, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Still, for compilers that Boost.Typeof doesn't support, it would be
> > nice if result_of could handle Boost.Lambda at least. More recent
> > libraries and future libraries could consider adopting a previously
> > existing practice (result<F(Args) or sig<tuple<Args> >) that result_of
> > can support without typeof.
>
>
> IMO, you have this backwards. Rather than patch result_of to handle
> lambda, lambda function objects should be modified to follow the
> result_of convention. It's now standard, after all.
Good point. I considered doing that, but didn't want to intrude on any
user code out there that follows the current Boost.Lamda convention.
Of course, I don't mind submitting a patch to Boost.Lambda as you
suggest if there's interest. That would help alleviate the problem of
having multiple return type conventions among Boost libraries. I could
also try to patch Fusion. Perhaps, my result_of patch could still be
useful for providing backwards compatibility for current Boost.Lambda
style user defined functors.
Daniel