"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uves3axtp.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
I find myself creating this class member:
compressed_pair< storage , compressed_pair< Lookup , compressed_pair< GetUnstored , SetUnstored > > > members;
I imagine this sort of usage is pretty common. The problem is that it's hard to initialize this member efficiently: you have to build and copy too many compressed_pairs. I propose to extend compressed_pair with overloaded ctors, as follows:
compressed_pair( first_param_type f , typename second_type::first_param_type sf , typename second_type::second_param_type ss);
compressed_pair( first_param_type f , typename second_type::first_param_type sf , typename second_type::second_type::first_param_type ssf , typename second_type::second_type::second_param_type sss );
...
etc.
If SFINAE doesn't take out these declarations when the second type is not a (compressed_)pair, we can always template them.
Thoughts?
The first thought that comes to my mind is that this situation cries out for a compressed_tuple class. How difficult would it be to write one? Joe Gottman