Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Should alloy::unpack be implicit? #6

Open
brunocodutra opened this issue Jul 29, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Should alloy::unpack be implicit? #6

brunocodutra opened this issue Jul 29, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@brunocodutra
Copy link
Owner

currently in order to use std::tuples and std::variants as Sources, one has to be explicit:

auto tup = std::make_tuple(1, '1', "one");

alloy::unpack(tup) >> sink; // equivalent to sink(1, '1', "one");

std::variant<int, char, std::string> var = "two"; 

alloy::unpack(var) >> sink; // equivalent to sink("two");

// or even
alloy::unpack(tup, var) >> sink; // equivalent to sink(1, '1', "one", "two");

should alloy::unpack be implicit instead?

auto tup = std::make_tuple(1, '1', "one");

tup >> sink; // equivalent to sink(1, '1', "one");

std::variant<int, char, std::string> var = "two"; 

var >> sink; // equivalent to sink("two");

alloy::join(tup, var) >> sink; // equivalent to sink(1, '1', "one", "two");
@brunocodutra brunocodutra changed the title Consider making alloy::unpack implicit Should alloy::unpack be implicit? Jul 29, 2017
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant