Re: [boost] [challenge: Dynamic Overloads]

From: Marco (mrcekets_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-09 07:11:03

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:54:11 +0200, Marco Costalba <mcostalba_at_[hidden]>  
wrote:

> On 10/9/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/8/07, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Marco Costalba wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Because the following line
>> > >
>> > > if (a = b)  // here = instead of == is intended
>> > >     assert(a==b);
>> > >
>> > > should never fail for any properly defined operator=() and
>> > > operator==() it derives that operator=() as proposed for our  
>> overload
>> > > does not satisfy the above very intuitive concepts (because &foo1 !=
>> > > &foo2) so I would say it cannot be called 'idiomatic' for this case.
>> >
>> > Yep. Agreed. See my other post why I am convinced your intuition
>> > is correct :-) No need to convince me more ;)
>> >
>>
>> How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?
>>
>
> Does is "register" a reserved keyword?
>
> Marco

Yes it's a storage specifier.

Marco Cecchetti

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/