Tobias Schwinger wrote:
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
My point is that the utility we have here is in fact too different from phoenix::switch_ to compare the two (and that boost::switch_ is not the best name):
What would be the point in phoenix::switch_ if it wasn't lazy?
OK, after some thinking I managed to look beyond my own nose and figured out that a non-lazy phoenix::switch_ would be an expression-level switch (like in VHDL or Ruby) and can indeed be a practical thing.
Nice one! Yeah, that too.
However, I don't think that's what this library is intended for.
That's where our disagreement starts. I don't see any reason why not. Why settle for a half baked solution when you can, with a bit more thought and a bit more code, have a truly elegant solution that encompasses a lot more area in the problem space. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net