Zhuo Qiang wrote:

what about _a = var(arg1) which IMO is more explicit

I considered that syntax too. Unecessarily verbose, IMO. The argN (like var(x)) already has reference semantics. That is why you can write: ++arg1 for example, instead of the more verbose: ++var(arg1). IMO, argN should always be implicitly an L-value, for consistency.

...

...

though the following code gives what I expect: int i = 1;

let(_a = val(_1)) [ cout << --_a << ' ' ](i); cout << i << endl;

Exactly! args are L-values. vals are R-values.

I'll emphasize that in the docs. Mind if I steal your example?

Sure! As you wish.

Done :-) Thanks! -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net