As if C++ didn't have enough of “black magic” already, there's another layer of that. Just in case you find error messages involving template applications still too readable.
Looks cursed to me.
But TIL dollar sign $ is also valid character for identifiers.
Neat. Reminds me of https://github.com/dry-python/lambdas
That's horrifying
I'm sorry I know this is horrific but I still love it. This looks like a better version of Boost Lambda2. I would potentially maybe replace `$` with `_` before using this (which should be easy as a layer) like Boost::Lambda2 but otherwise I'm excited to use it. Not that I would use anything like this in production, but it looks too fun not to play around with.
huh. very cute. in the past, i had an idea for terser lambda syntax, similar to C#'s expression body functions - which i did end up implementing in clang:
auto sum = [](auto a, auto b): a+b;
Pretty cool. I was wondering what kind of arcane magic they used to get $xxx working, since $ is not a standard identifier char... then I realised they straight up define $arg, $call, etc as constants (makes a lot of sense). And $ really is not an identifier char by the Standard, but evidently some compilers accept it.
I fail to see the benefit from the lens of C++23.
Isn’t this basically the obsolete Boost.Lambda?
Not really a new idea. These are expression templates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_templates
[dead]
[dead]
Another idea in this vein, but with a surprisingly straightforward implementation (27 lines): https://github.com/GrantMoyer/lambda_hpp
I started out trying to write something like the OP, but changed direction when I convinced myself there would have been no sane way to implement member call syntax. I honestly can't decide if it's cursed or genuinely useful (minus the unicode name, that's cursed).