Subject: Re: [boost] [mpl] Using transform problem and solution
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-28 08:25:04
On 1/27/2011 9:15 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
> AMDG
>
> On 1/27/2011 6:04 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>> I have a boost::mpl::vector of nullary metafunctions and I need to
>> transform it into a sequence of the metafunction's inner types. As in:
>>
>> typedef boost::mpl::vector<boost::mpl::identity<int> > tvec;
>> typedef boost::mpl::vector<int> tvecinner;
>>
>> So I try boost::mpl::transform:
>>
>> typedef typename boost::mpl::transform<tvec,_1>::type ttrans;
>> BOOST_MPL_ASSERT((boost::mpl::equal<tvecinner,ttrans>));
>>
>> But that does not work and the assert fails. Evidently my _1 is not
>> working by itself although it seems as if it should because it is a
>> placeholder expression and its inner type is what I want.
>>
>
> I would say that the behavior of MPL is correct.
> Consider what would happen with the runtime Lambda:
>
> _1(f) -> f
> bind(_1)(f) -> f()
>
> Here also, using _1 by itself isn't
> enough to trigger evaluation.
I am not sure what the two expressions above are supposed to do, but I
will take your word for it that just using _1 does not trigger
evaluation since evidently it does not in my case.
>
>> So I try:
>>
>> template <class T>
>> struct tself : T
>> {
>> };
>>
>> and now instead:
>>
>> typedef typename boost::mpl::transform<tvec,tself<_1> >::type ttrans;
>> BOOST_MPL_ASSERT((boost::mpl::equal<tvecinner,ttrans>));
>>
>> works fine and the assert succeeds.
>>
>> But that 'tself' hack seems like it should be really unnecessary. Have I
>> missed something cleaner and easier ?
>>
>
> mpl::apply<_1>?
My _1 is a metafunction, not a metafunction class so that does not work.
I guess what I see as my "hack" is the correct solution. It just seemed
funny using it.
I had previously asked in other thread whether MPL has a metafunction
which takes a nullary metafunction and returns the nullary
metafunction's inner type, and was correctly asked why I would need
something like that. I replied that indeed I should not and my thinking
was muddled when I asked the question. But here is a case where it is
evidently needed and my 'tself' is the solution. But it still feels like
a real "hack" which somehow should never be necessary, but evidently is
necessary in my case.