Re: [boost] boost::function< R (*) (A1, A2) >

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-19 09:49:24

Oh, I buy that argument!

I like the idea of using the reference-to-function. However, is that not
also a legal function return type?

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>

> From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo_at_[hidden]>

> > Is there any specific reason to support such a syntax? function<void,
char
> > const*, int> seems good enough to me.
>
> It's good enough, when you know that the return type is the first in the
> list, and you don't need the parameter names.
>
> function< void, char const * /*name*/, int /*mode*/ > is acceptable, but
the
> above is still clearer for people that encounter function<> for the first
> time. You can always use
>
> function<void, char const *, int> pf; // void pf(char const * name, int
> mode)
>
> of course. :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost