-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of Joel de Guzman Sohail Somani wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of Peter Dimov
I need to warn you that there is very little chance for your patch to be accepted in this form. Extending _bi::listN (I'd suggest making them conforming MPL or fusion sequences) needs to be done non-intrusively and in a separate header.
-----
I understand what you mean here but didn't you say that the whole thing would be easier if one was to use a fusion tuple as L?
I understand Peter. It can be done non-intrusively. Fusion(2) was designed with a requirement that you should be able to "adapt" ----- Yep, I'm with you both now. Thank you both very much! Good thing I posted before I spent too much time on it :) Sohail