Re: [boost] Re: Is there plans to make stand-alone functor traits?

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-04 18:40:27

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevin_vanhorn_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:01 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Is there plans to make stand-alone functor traits?

> --- In boost_at_y..., jk_at_s... wrote:
> > There are cases when unified function object traits would be
> > useful, when writing template class with functor as template
> > parameters.
>
> I wrote a replacement for <functional> several years ago that worked
> for function pointers as well, and allowed one to distinguish the
> unadorned argument or return type (e.g., foo) from the full argument
> or return type (e.g., foo &, foo const &, or foo).  If there's any
> interest, I can dig it up and post it to the list.

Yes! I always been frustrated by having to remember the
AdaptableUnaryFunction distinction, and where it was needed... but most of
all by the fact that I knew it was unneccessary.

-Dave