On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:35 AM, shunsuke <pstade.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Walker wrote: <snip>
struct my_plus { template<class> struct result; template<class Me, class X, class Y> struct result<Me(X,Y)> : boost::remove_cv<X> { };
template<class X, class Y> typename result<my_plus(X,Y)>::type operator()(X x, Y y) const { return x + y; } };
To my eye, I can't see how Egg makes things that much easier. It doesn't look particularly helpful.
I was feeling annoyed that I had to write `typename result<my_plus(X,Y)>::type`. Also, your `result<>` implementation is wrong. It is error-prone to write ResultOf-conforming FunctionObject without some indirection.
How is this result<> implementation wrong? I'm not convinced that writing result_of compatible functors is that error prone, but if I made a mistake here, that would pretty much prove your point. ;-) Also, I'm going to try to respond to your other comments as soon as I can. I've been doing a little reading, and I have some suggestions for refocusing/reframing a subset of the Egg problem domain in terms of the standard library and Boost.Function. At least, I hope to come up with some examples that are more concrete than I had in my original comments. Daniel