On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM, shunsuke <pstade.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
Hum, if you want to have guaranteed static initialization, you need to statically know the function pointer value:
template<typename Sig, Sig * p> static_function_ptr { typedef typename result_of_sig<Sig>::type result_type;
template<typename Args...> result_type operator()(Args.... args) { return p(args); } };
Substitute the pseudo-variadic syntax with proper preprocessor magic :).
Egg secretly has the feature. See "egg/inlined.hpp".
Inline because it is practically the only way to get gcc to inline a function pointer :) ? Anyways, one reason less to need complex static initialization.
I'm really afraid that those macros may keep users away from the library.
Hey, maybe it is just me, maybe others won't have any problems with them. I just find the macro based initialization ugly and unnecessary complex.
You expect something like this?:
static_result_of<T_curry2(F)>::type c = BOOST_EGG_CURRY2({}); // static
Can't you use boost::result_of here? (or return_of) Also, do you have a plan for allowing complex statically initialized expressions in header files without ODR violations?
boost::result_of<T_curry2(F const &)>::type c = curry2(f); // dynamic
or egg::return_of if you want recursive evaluation.
stateless_result_of<T_curry2(F)>::type c = BOOST_EGG_STATELESS(); // for stateless one.
Why not: expression<T_curry2(F)> c = { /*just this please :) */ }; // note the missing ::type -- gpd