On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson@intel.com> wrote:
I suppose it behooves me to apologize as well. I didn't really intend to put words in other people's mouths. I was trying to point out a contradiction in your shared position.
When the argument is that I should provide runtime parameters to the user, but use compile time parameters internally you are exactly advocating code that looks like:
if(condition)
point.get<0>() = value; else point.get<1>() = value;
Why do you think I am advocating that? The user is free to use whatever his point class provides, be that .x()/.y() members, free functions, or array-like access. if (condition) point.x() = value; else point[1] = value; // this point class supports member functions and array-like access! float magnitude = sqrt(dot_product(point, point)); The dot_product internals are where the compile-time access takes place. dot_product would therefore work on arrays, tuples, and fusion tuples out of the box and any custom type simply needs to add get<> support (which would hopefully be trivial, perhaps using Fusion). --Michael Fawcett