[fusion] Constructing fusion::map<P1, P2, .., PN> Requires same ordering of P's?

Hi Everyone,

I don't know if this is a bug or intended behavior, given the snippet
below:

<code>

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

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

void foo() {
  my_map_type instance( make_pair<tags::type_2>(1),
make_pair<tags::type_2>(2) );
};

</code>

It complains that instance does not have a defined constructor given the
order of arguments. I'm using Fusion that's in Boost SVN trunk revision
39151 -- frozen due to internal development/engineering decisions.

Is this a bug, or a feature?

Insights would be most appreciated.

--
Dean Michael Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.
<dmberris <at> friendster.com>
Mobile: +639287291459
YMID: mikhailberis

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/