Joel de Guzman wrote:
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
Interesting. Just curious: how would you mask "nullaries" whith a non-member template function?
You don't. It just works because templates are delayed.
Of course! Confused me.
Something different (that sentence just brought it back to my mind):
I noticd that fusion::pair<end>(begin) works quite well as a "compound iterator" but has a pretty uncool interface. A wrapper around it could give a useful utility...
'in' is of type fusion::pair<end>(pos), '==>' denotes interface transformation provided by an imaginary wrapper
*in.second ==> *in equal_to<typename In::first_type, typename In::second_type> ==> eoi<In>
Since this thing knows when it's at the end, it could (BTW) even have an operator-> that disappears in this case...
I'd refrain from commenting right now because I realized I might have been wrong.
OK. Then I wouldn't need an "end iterator" for a full iteration and could ask the *one* iterator whether it's at the end, right?
I think now that Dave is correct that we can detect an iterator pointing nowhere and simply return void_ or something like I did above for Phoenix.
Yeah. But for my vote: I'd rather live without 'operator->' if it costs me more template instantiations per iteration frame. Further it's probably even more consistent to enforce explicit dereferentiation, so runtime code is kept in sync with result computation code (we'd have to use result_of::deref there, anyway).
Thanks!
My pleasure. Regards, Tobias