I never had the opportunity to get myself familiar with fusion so I started learning it and I'm really amazed how easy the library is to use. I think I'm at a point where I would like to reach to the community for some advice.
The very idea is to use Fusion to manipulate the pixel, not defining the pixel, though you could do it.
I think I must be misunderstood you then. No problem. But would you agree that gil and fusion share at some code which could be eliminated?
I have one file "adapted_pixel.hpp" that adapts GIL pixel (concept) to Fusion Associative Sequence. Though I want to share here but there's another dependency on my other header.
It's fine when you just point out the general idea. What algorithms in fusion do you use that's not available in gil?
reverse_view is a view after all, so you can't instantiate it with ( 30, 20, 10 ). If you wanna define the reverse one, then fusion::map<..in reverse order...>.
So there is no way to define the return type for reverse view?
I'm happy with the way that GIL defines the pixel, what Fusion really shines here is the generalized way to manipulate the data.
Could you hint me some ideas for what fusion provides that's not in gil? Regards, Christian