On Thursday 19 February 2004 09:09 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
Douglas Gregor wrote:
Could you give an example of a problem with this?
I have "prefix" currying in mind (the usual theoretical meaning of "currying", but please correct me if I'm wrong).
boost::function<void(int, int)> f;
f(2)(3); // same as f(2, 3)
but note what happens when someone inadvertently omits a trailing argument:
f(2); // compile-time error now, silent no-op with prefix currying support
Ah, that'd be a killer. I wasn't thinking about prefix currying.
As for f(..., _[k], ...) as a shorthand for bind(f, ..., _k, ...), you can do this today if you like, this isn't fc++ dependant in any way. Fact of the matter is that you have not, ergo, there is no user demand, ergo, this places the feature in the "but wouldn't it be cool if ..." category as far as I'm concerned.
Some demand might come from FC++ users if it's accepted and we are able to switch over its indirect functions, but I agree. Doug