Re: Re: syntax suggestion

On Friday 05 March 2004 00:21, David Abrahams wrote:
> Alexander Nasonov <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Thursday 04 March 2004 19:22, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> You can fix that by treating the result of the whole expression as an
> >> AST and evaluating it afterwards, but as I said, I worry about the
> >> compile-time costs.
> >
> > Major cases are already pointed out by Daniel:
> >
> > Daniel Wallin wrote:
> >> There are at least two cases where it won't work:
> >>
> >> struct A { void f(); }
> >> struct B : A {};
> >>
> >> class_<B>("B") [
> >> def("f", &B::f) // signature is void(A::*)() but A isn't
> >> // wrapped.
> >> ]
> >>
> >> and the most trivial..
> >>
> >> class_<A>("A") [
> >> def(constructor<>()) // Error, we need to explicitly mention
> >> ]                        // the wrapped type for every constructor
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying.  Any of these can be handled
> perfectly well with lazy evaluation if you're willing to incur enough
> compile-time cost.  I don't think we're understanding one another.
Although you put your reply under Daniel's words I assume you don't understand 
*my* point of view. Right?
I agree that lazy evaluation is poor solution for complex classes in terms of 
complie resources. I'm trying to find less aggressive to those resources 
solution which has nicer syntax.
-- 
Alexander Nasonov
Independent Developer & Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAR6ENK8n/CZPtRx4RAgKFAJ9GP+A3zx6TX9jkDbrGtNWc0v31NQCeLug4
zDKmBn/6ARk5JtUI0BqL2l8=
=S5c1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----