Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] Review
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-11 02:01:29
Le 11/03/2016 06:10, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
>
>>> We can define functions by simply composing other functions together and
>> we
>>> don't need to write awkward syntax nor template boilerplate for it. For
>>> example, we can simply write `make_tuple` like this:
>>>
>>> BOOST_FIT_STATIC_FUNCTION(make_tuple) = by(decay,
>>> construct<std::tuple>());
>> What is the type of by(decay,construct<std::tuple>()) ?
>>
> It is something like `by_adaptor<decltype(decay), construct<std::tuple>>`.
>
>
>> I thought I would be able to write locally:
>>
>> auto make_tuple(by(decay,construct<std::tuple>()));
>>
>> but evidently you are saying that does not work.
>>
> That is not what I am saying at all. It can work, the functions can be used
> locally, like in the first example. However, for `make_tuple` this is not
> useful at all.
Let people consider what is useful or not. Naming the local functions
could make the code more readable sometimes.
> If `std::make_tuple` was assigned to a local variable then no
> one could ever call the function. So you use global function objects when
> you
> want to make the function available for consumption by others. And the
> advantage of defining `make_tuple` this way over writing it as it is written
> currently in the standard library, is that we can avoid all the template
> boilerplate involved with this.
This is style question that should be out of the scope of the library.
The library must show what can be done with it.
Vicente