shunsuke wrote:
I tend to think `value_at` of transform_view should be the same as `result_of::deref` of transform_view. I'm not sure, though.
value_at (as well as value_of) returns (essentially): f(value_at<s>) while at (as well as deref) returns (essentially): f(at<s>) alas, this uncovers a bug in the implementation where value_at does not follow above. You got me thinking though. It could very well be that you are correct! Perhaps we need the same behavior for both at/deref and value_at/value_of. My thinking, OTOH, is that both should get the value_at of the underlying sequence. Hence, transform(vector<int, int&>, f) will trigger f this way: int ---> f::result<f(int)> int& ---> f::result<f(int&)> do you see a reason why it should be the other way around? Thanks to your keen sense! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net