Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17

On 9/16/2017 7:53 PM, P F via Boost wrote:

...

On Sep 16, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

On 9/16/2017 2:14 PM, P F via Boost wrote:

...

...

5) I do not understand the purpose of the pipable adaptor. What is the point of using it ? It is mentioned as an alternative to Unified Call Syntax but, while I understand the latter, I do not understandable how pipable allows "extension methods", which is a large part of the purpose of UFCS. That is, you want to add an extension method to a class so it can be called as `x.f(y)`. With UFCS, you can just declare a free function called as `f(x, y)` and then call it as `x.f(y)`, with the Fit library you would declare the function as pipable and then call it as `x | f(y)`.

Let us suppose I have a class:

struct X { some member functions etc. };

Then I want to add a member function to class X with a prototype called void f(int) so I can call it as an extension method without modifying X. With UFCS in effect I create the free function:

void f(X px,int py) { some implementation }

and now if I have:

X x;

I can call:

x.f(3); // Works with UFCS support

successfully. Could you please show me the equivalent code that uses pipable in this same scenario ?

You could define `f` like this(using a lambda for simplification):

BOOST_FIT_STATIC_LAMBDA_FUNCTION(f) = boost::fit::pipable([](X px,int py) { some implementation });

And then you can call it like this:

X x; x | f(3); // Calls f as f(x, 3)

OK. Thanks ! BTW I do not recall seeing anywhere in the doc where you mention that Fit constructs are in the boost::fit namespace.

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