Eric Niebler wrote:
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Is the sort of thing you are looking for?
fused_ctor<T> fc; T t = fc(sequence);
Yes, that's the thing.
OK, but why duplicate the unpacking of the Sequence?
All it takes is yet another adapter encapsulating a type's ctor(s) in a function object to just use fusion::(invoke|fused)_function_object. E.g:
<snip>
Client code (at function scope):
invoke_function_object( ctor<my_class>(), argseq );
Yes, that's exactly it. Now, put it in Fusion so I don't have to write a function object with N overloads. :-)
So what is the interface that would be preferred. We can: 1) Provide class ctor<T> as part of the Fusion public interface, and let users call invoke and create fused<ctor<T> > objects. 2) We can provide invoke_ctor<T> and fused_ctor<T>, implement them in terms of a private detail::ctor<T>. This might be a bit more convenient for users, and would give us more scope for optimizing this use case under the hood 3) Provide both Personally I'd probably prefer 2 as its a bit less typing for users, and gives us more implementation leeway, but I'm fine with 1 if others prefer it. I think the ctor shorthand should be spelt construct as well, to make things a bit more friendly. Thanks Dan ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.htm...