"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:eea6t1$esb$1@sea.gmane.org...
Andy Little wrote:
"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:eea4i0$8lq$1@sea.gmane.org...
Some of these elements you mentioned do have generic appeal. static_value and advance_iterator looks general enough. plus, minus etc, have overlaps over other "functional" libraries;
So What? Only Boost.Typeof binds compile time types to function signatures.
F* the "functional" type deduction schemes, including mine,lambda, phoenix,
Boost.Typeof provides a common syntax via the function return type, and is the future.
(Apologies to the 12 year olds reading the list.)
fusion *must* have type deduction, and Boost.Typeof is the placeholder.
I think you missed my point. I am not arguing against using Boost.Typeof for plus, minus, etc. I am only stating my apprehension towards adding a functional module into fusion. It seems not the right place.
There is no other right place. What I mean is, fusion is kind of important to C++, hence , fusion is the right place. regards Andy Little