Looking over the C++17 paper on folds, (and on cppreference), I\'m confused as to why the choice was made to only work with operators? At first glance it seems like it woul
That's a great paper and a glorious language feature. If we bypass the standardese talk, which I'm not particularly fond of, I'd like to propose a workaround. Since I don't have a c++17 compiler (or a time machine) my answer will only be outlining, what I believe could be, a solution to providing fold expressions with arbitrary functions with the language status as is.
template
struct wp {
T const& val;
// yes there should be constructors
};
template
using wrapped_pack = make_wrapped
wptemplate
ret_val operator+(wp const& lhs, wp const& rhs) {...}
This would require an extra layer where the args of the fold are transformed to wrapped arguments
An obvious shortcoming of the above is that it doesn't guarantee uniqueness (or scalability) : every fold with a custom callable would consume a built in operator overloading.
There should be hacks to vary the types based on the expression they're encountered in but I don't want to dive that deep into a thought experiment (eg using the type of Op in the type of the wrapper already gives much more space to scale into).