Joel de Guzman wrote:
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
(c0, c1, ... cN)
(note: Application of comma operator ;-)).
?! Why doesn't it just return another (compound) Case object and leave the Sequence an unspecified implementation detail...
<...>
Same here.
* case_<I>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
Change:
* cases<SI>(f) is equivalent to the original Steven interface.
We could have this case swallow the index during function invocation, as for manual application we probably don't want to have it. I think it's typical and easy enough to just model the Case concept directly...
Forgive me, I think my headache is getting in the way and I can't seem to parse this sentence properly. Could you please explain a bit more?
That sentence is a bit unclear, too. I meant: Not forwarding the index. If 'switch_' takes a Case Object for the cases, it might be easy enough to just implement that concept rather than using generators. Get well! Regards, Tobias