on Wed Aug 24 2011, Eric Niebler <eric-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
On 8/24/2011 4:28 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
However, the problem comes with function objects having operator() overloads with different arity. Another problem I couldn't solve yet is how to decide which overload gets curryied or not. Consider:
struct foo { void operator()(int); void operator()(int, int); };
curryable<foo> f; auto curried = f(1); // To curry or not to curry, that is the question
As soon as enough arguments are collected to call the curried function, it gets called. So in this case, f(1) calls f::operator()(int).
That's an asymmetry about most currying syntax that I never liked, at least for C++. I suppose when all functions are fully lazy there's no assymmetry, but that's not C++. In C++ we have parens to trigger evaluation. Even in Phoenix, laziness only goes partway: you still need parens to trigger final evaluation. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com