----- Original Message ----- From: "shunsuke" <pstade.mb@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Egg 2nd request for reviews: Some comments
vicente.botet wrote:
Hi again,
In the Quick start, I found this use of macros very odd
egg::result_of_pipable<T_make_filtered>::type const filtered = BOOST_EGG_PIPABLE_L BOOST_EGG_POLY() BOOST_EGG_PIPABLE_R;
egg::result_of_pipable< egg::result_of_indirect<T_make_filtered const *>::type
::type const her_filtered = BOOST_EGG_PIPABLE_L BOOST_EGG_INDIRECT(&make_filtered) BOOST_EGG_PIPABLE_R;
Could you show what a user that do not use the macros needs to write. This will surely help to understand why these macros a necessary.
It was really odd. Fortunately, in a recent discussion, it is shown that those macros can be removed with a trivial patch. A newly proposed form is:
egg::static_< result_of<T_pipable(T_make_filtered)> >::type const filtered = {{}};
How do you think about this form?
Well, there are no more macros, this is much better for me.. Sorry, I have missed the post. Could you give me the reference to this discussion?
It would be very nice if the docummentation contains links for the macros the same way you have done for the specific notation.
By the way I fond this link to specific notation very useful. Thanks for the trick.
Thanks.
I have no doubt that the use of bind expressions may be less readable than: void quick_start_nest() { int i6 = 6, i7 = 7; std::plus<int> plus; std::minus<int> minus;
int r = // Lv: 0 1 2 // \x -> (\(y,z) -> plus(5, y(z, x))) egg::nest2(plus)(5, egg::nest2(_1_(_1))(_1_(_2), _0_(_1))) (i6)(minus, i7);
std::cout << r; } Prints 6.
But, do you really think that some one is able to read this without taking 5 minutes :-(. I think that you should start with more simple examples, showing only a new feature and comparing with code without Egg.
nestN was invented just two weeks ago. I must admit less explanation. And a simple example will be added with a comparison. (Maybe I wanted to show this feature to lambda library authors.)
I like a lot your fuse/unfuse technique for emulating variadic functions. Only this is enough to see in the implementation.
Ok.
On the section The Return of the Monomorphic It would be greate to see the compiler messages with and without Egg.
I will.
Regards,
-- Shunsuke Sogame
Best regards _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escriba