David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Daniel Wallin <dalwan01@student.umu.se> writes:
Sure. Maybe we should have two, so people who want to do metaprogramming doesn't have to remove_reference<>?
binding<p, key, default>::type -> T | default binding_result<p, key, default>::type -> T& | default
?
I don't understand why you'd want the one without the reference type... and -- I'm sure it's not what you want me to focus on -- but I don't like the name "binding_result" one bit.
I'm inclined to vote "no" on this one. It isn't a flexibility that's known to be needed.
So far I've just renamed index_result to binding.
Anyway, I'm inclined that we not try to do this by-value return thing. Your thoughts?
Still would like to hear them.
Also:
1. for the lazy case we should probably use result_of<F()>::type on the compilers that support it?
2. We probably also need lazy_binding<p, k, f>::type, right?
Now done. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com