On 8/26/2011 2:05 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
I don't see any technical obstacles to:
f(_, y, z)
where _ is a placeholder. You could use positional placeholders for argument reordering.
That's more general than straight currying, and it's clearer: f(x,_,_) is a curried version of f that is a bit more explicit about what it means than just writing f(x).
You might say the syntactic advantages of this over bind(f, _, y, z) are minimal. You might be right.
I wouldn't say that. I like the placeholder syntax; it's similar to what MPL does, and frankly I had assumed we already had libraries (phoenix?) that did things this way.
All the library solutions we have so far involve an explicit call to a function named "bind" or similar.
The only question is what happens when you write f(x,y,z). IIUC, phoenix leaves you with a nullary function, but you're proposing to actually call f. I'm just not sure that's quite as appropriate in C++ as it is in Haskell. Suppose you *wanted* a nullary function object (e.g. so you could launch a thread with it) rather than its result. Then you need to switch to a different syntax for the final argument?
Ah, thank you. Good point. I think I'll let this issue drop now. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com