Opened 11 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#1404 new Feature Requests

Unordered Fusion Map constructors.

Reported by: Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@…> Owned by: Joel de Guzman
Milestone: To Be Determined Component: fusion
Version: Boost Development Trunk Severity: Cosmetic
Keywords: Cc:


Currenty, when constructing Fusion Maps, the order of type arguments used as template parameters need to be followed in the constructor as well.


struct tags {
  struct type_1 { };
  struct type_2 { };

using namespace boost::fusion ;

typedef map< pair<tags::type_1, int>, pair<tags::type_2, int> > my_map_type ;

  // following line will not compile, because of the argument ordering
  my_map_type instance( make_pair<tags::type_2>(2), make_pair<tags::type_1>(1) );

  // following line will compile, because the argument order is the same as
  // the order of elements in the fusion map specialization
  my_map_type instace_works( make_pair<tags::type_1>(1), make_pair<tags::type_2>(2) );


The feature request is to support arbitrary ordering of constructor arguments, not necessarily to follow the order of argument types as prescribed in the template arguments to the fusion map.

Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by Stjepan Rajko

[Bug Sprint] One way I see of implementing this would be through a view which reorders the elements of a source map to match the order of keys of a target map. This view could then be used for construction and assignment from an existing map:

my_map_type instance (
  reorder_map_to<my_map_type> (
    make_map( make_pair<tags::type_2>(2), make_pair<tags::type_1>(1) ) ) );

instance =
  reorder_map_to<my_map_type> (
    make_map( make_pair<tags::type_2>(2), make_pair<tags::type_1>(1) ) ) );

// or

my_map_type instance ( reorder_map_to<my_map_type> (some_other_map) );

instance = reorder_map_to<my_map_type> (some_other_map);

The map class could use the reordering view automatically in construction from a list of arguments, construction from a Sequence, and assignment (so that the OP's original code snippet compiles), but that would complicate the otherwise simple implementation. Would using the reordering view manually fulfill the need here?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.