From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 14:13:08
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Jaakko Jarvi" <jajarvi_at_[hidden]>
> > > Either way, I still think that the right approach is to write a "why
> > > paper instead of coming up with cunning workarounds for the language
> > > shortcomings. (hint) :-)
> > I agree.
> How would typeof() solve this problem? You can deduce the return type, but
> we need a way to treat the entire wad of overloads for any given name as a
> single runtime entity to be resolved only at the point of invocation.
> Another important extension I hadn't thought of...
You are right, it doesn't, but at least it enables polymorphic function
objects to function. Considering that an overloaded function would be a
polymorphic function object under this extension...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk