Paul Fultz II

Oops, I forgot that too. Well, I can't change anything until after the review, but thanks for the heads up.

Really? This has nothing to do with configurations.

Oops, thats a mistake in the documentation. The semantics should be: ``` cpp assert(apply(f, xs...) == f(xs...)); ```

That you want to call the first parameter with the rest of the parameters. One example, is to curry the functions parameters: ``` cpp assert(compress(apply, f)(x, y, z) == f(x)(y)(z));...

> Could you add this example or another more user friendly? Yea I will.

Oh, should I add that to the "semantics" of `apply`? That might be a good idea.

> What about replacing unpack_sequence by an overloaded apply? That would be confusing since `fit::apply` calls a function with its parameters and the overload `apply` unpacks the sequence. I could...

Using the name `apply` here has a long history in C++. There are similar constructs in other libraries, such as Boost.MPL, Meta, Boost.Hana and Pstade.Egg. I would prefer to stick...

Now that I think about it more. I don't think I will add an ADL customization point, because it makes it harder to detect if a sequence is unpackable. I...

Well, thinking about this even more, an ADL customization point could be added, but it would have a different signature. Instead the ADL function would return a function that can...