From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-10 13:05:51
From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
> P.S. Perhaps we can start thinking about a better model for
> adaptable function objects.
Yes, perhaps we should.
The whole thing boils down to:
1. There is no 'adaptable function object' model that can work given the
template<class T> T * operator()(T &);
or, actually, there is, but it's not worth pursuing. :-)
2. There are two problems that need to be solved, and we'll be able to
handle arbitrary function objects without needing a model.
2a. Arbitrary function argument forwarding.
template<class T> void f(T & t);
is close, but not enough.
2b. Return type inference.
typeof. Enough said.
The various lambda libraries (notably the Lambda library) approximate this
functionality very well in (current) C++, but they can't solve the problem
in general. Even _1 << _2 is so disproportionately non-trivial.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk