Re: [boost] Function pointers and Borland C++

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 18:12:09

Well, I think these problems get in the way of Boost.Python working with
Borland.
Maybe this info leads to a workaround, though...

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Function pointers and Borland C++

> On Friday 29 June 2001 05:04, you wrote:
> > Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Borland C++ seems to have a bug regarding template argument deduction
> > > when dealing with function pointers. Consider this:
> > >
> > > template<typename T> void set(const T& t);
> > > int foo(int, int) {};
> > > // ...
> > > set(&foo);
> >
> > I don't have enough context to be sure the following is the problem, but
in
> > this case:
> >
> > struct x{
> > int foo(int,int) {};
> > void z(){ set( &foo ); }
> > };
> >
> > with Borland extensions on, Borland C++ treats &foo as a bound
"closure__"
> > to this->foo. You need to say set( &x::foo ) to get a straight member
> > function pointer. I've never been sure how ANSI compliant that was..
> >
> > De-lurkingly yours,
> >
> > Ross.
>
> I'm only dealing with free function pointers and static member pointers,
so
> closures shouldn't be getting in the way.
>
> Doug
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>