On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2011 1:10 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Aug 25 2011, Eric Niebler <eric-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
On 8/25/2011 4:16 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Aug 25 2011, Eric Niebler <eric-AT-boostpro.com> wrote: <snip> Eric Niebler wrote: I don't see any technical obstacles to:
f(_, y, z)
where _ is a placeholder. You could use positional placeholders for argument reordering. You might say the syntactic advantages of this over bind(f, _, y, z) are minimal. You might be right.
Exactly my thinking. I additionally have some problems in thinking about possible semantics: auto g = f(_, y, z); // pretend that f is a curryable function auto h = g(1); // same as f(1, y, z)? what if f had a 4th argument? As much as i like the idea, i can almost always construct trivial usecases where the proposed syntax is ambiguous.