Peter Dimov wrote:
Joel de Guzman:
Oh my, there's a lot of discussion I can't find that snippet of information. Anyway, it has something to do about using the "let" semantics be applied to "lambda" only on the top level. I think it will work with the lambda syntax and behavior you sought for.
Not quite.
The purpose of unlambda is to allow you to pass a lambda expression into a function that expects an ordinary function object and might use it as a part of another lambda expression.
template<class F> void g( F f ) { h( bind( f, _2, _1 ) ); }
int main() { g( _1 < _2 ); // fail g( unlambda( _1 < _2 ) ); // works }
A top-level lambda[] that does let()[] will not work for this case.
Yep, I'm keeping the behavior of protect, not unlambda. As I mentioned in my other post. val(_1 < _2) can probably be the unlambda behavior. BTW, has anyone realized that if I were to make phoenix, lambda, then lambda[ ... ] will be ambiguous with the namespace lambda? Argh! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net