RE: [boost] [MPL] naming question

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-04 15:19:14

Terje Slettebø wrote:
> I guess this is another good argument for class template 
> overloading. Does anyone know if this has been "formally" 
> proposed for C0x? 

AFAIK, no.

> A quick search at Google Groups turned up nothing.
> 
> With it, you might have used:
> 
> template<>
> struct plus<default_type, default_type>
> {
>   template<class T1, class T2, class T3, class T4, class T5>
>   struct apply { ... }
> 
>   template<class Sequence>
>   struct apply { ... }
> };
> 

Yes, except that I don't want to place a burden of supporting both forms on
a metafunction author. It's 'apply_tuple' that is supposed to take care of
arguments unfolding and passing them on, separately, to the metafunction
being invoked.

> And what about partial specialisation of function templates? 

http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2001/n1295.htm

> Could there be a good chance to get that, as well? I guess these things 
> depend much on somebody writing a formal proposal. :)

In particular.

Aleksey