Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Currie (christopher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-21 11:55:40

Peter Dimov wrote:
> That's odd. This is the line that fails:
> BOOST_TEST( bind(&X::hash, _1)(x) == 23558 );
> and the error message seems to indicate that the overload
> template<class F, class A1>
> _bi::bind_t<_bi::unspecified, F, typename _bi::list_av_1<A1>::type>
> BOOST_BIND(F f, A1 a1)
> is (incorrectly) preferred over
> template<class R, class T, class A1>
> _bi::bind_t< R const &, _mfi::dm<R, T>, typename _bi::list_av_1<A1>::type >
> BOOST_BIND(R T::*f, A1 a1)

That helps. Here's the test case that makes it fail:

struct unspecified {};

template<class R> class bind_t { };

template<class R, class F>
     bind(F f);

template<class F>
     bind(F f);

template<class R, class T>
     bind_t<R const &>
     bind(R T::* pm)
   return bind_t<R const &>();

struct X { int i; };

int main() { bind(&X::i); }

The Sun compiler is selecting the first partial specialization over the
second. If I comment out the first specialization, the code compiles
fine, but for some reason it thinks the first is a better match, so it
won't link.

Is this something we can work around, or is this something the user will
just have to deal with? I can specify "bind<int, X>(&X::i)" in main, and
it will compile.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at