Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
??? r = lambda[t1];
result_of<T_lambda(T1)>::type r = lambda[t1]
might work just fine, but maybe overloading result_of is not nice. What about:
protected<t1> r = lambda[t1]
I like making everything be FunctionObject so that result_of can be used everywhere. Anyway, this depends on rationale of a library.
[...]
I tend to hesitate to use result_of/return_of without function-calls.
Again, what do you mean exactly? And why do you esistate? I'm evaluating egg design, so these answers would be very valuable.
E.g. result_of<F(T1)>::type s;
result_of is a trait which extracts return type of function-calls, but s is default-constructed without function-calls.
Well, what is the problem? As long as there is no bind-like function in there which requires passing closure parameters, it should be fine. I agree that it might be confusing initially.
Strictly speaking, when you don't know whether an argument is a lvalue or rvalue, result_of cannot be used. In other words, runtime object as argument is needed. So, I think yet another name ("imaginary_result_of" or something) is needed. Regards, -- Shunsuke Sogame