"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@[...].net>  writes:

>  From: "David Abrahams" <dave@[...].com>
> > 
> > I've been talking with Aleksey recently about how to improve the
> > syntactic situation without losing the separation of concerns that we
> > get, but we didn't come up with anything convincingly better.  I think
> > a long time ago the for_each parameter used to look like:
> > 
> >     class f
> >     {
> >         template <class T>
> >         struct apply
> >         {
> >             static void execute() {...};
> >         };
> >     };
> > 
> > IOW, a metafunction class with a nested 'execute' function.  However
> > that's not really any better syntactically, it has problems carrying
> > state, and it's anti-idiomatic.
> 
>  The state problem is easy:
> 
>  struct F
>  {
>      template<class T> void execute();
>  };

Which isn't usable portably on all broken platforms, nor is it that
different from:

  struct F
  {
      template <class T>  void operator()(T) { ... };
  };

it's-a-bag-'o'-tradeoffs-ly y'rs,
dave

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave@[...].com * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost