Andy Little wrote:
"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ef1t83$bhv$1@sea.gmane.org...
Andy Little wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:87fyenkjh9.fsf@pereiro.luannocracy.com...
AFAICT the name ftag should be changed to something more descriptive and more certainly unique, e.g. boost_fusion_iterator_tag. Is there a reason it needs to be so short? Why make such a trivial change to the interface post review? AFAICS now is too late, and will cause unnecessary pain to users.. like myself. Well, actually, it shouldn't be a part of the interface. Here, I'm used to calling it the f#%$tag :) It's not supposed to be for public consumption, and I intend to enforce that. Either way, it's not a good name (especially for minors. ;) and it must be changed.
And BTW its pretty public in the 'make your own iterator" part of the docs.
Yeah. That's unfortunate. I asked Dan to fix it. Anyway, I suggest you do the right thing: specialize tag_of.
So far I have made 5 fusion style iterators. Next is the matrix minor iterator, which extracts minors from a matrix, as a prelude to extracting cofactors.
Cool!
Fusion::Views are wonderful things ....
Views are wonderful things. If you remember, I mentioned this idea about a const string library using Fusion like views. I'm betting such a library will rock in terms of performance. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net