Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Currie (christopher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-21 15:36:17

David Abrahams wrote:
>>struct unspecified {};
>>template<class R> class bind_t { };
>>template<class R, class F>
>> bind_t<R>
>> bind(F f);
>>template<class F>
>> bind_t<unspecified>
>> 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.
> These are overloads, not partial specializations, but anyway...

Right, I forget that you can't specialize functions.

> what happens if you reverse their order?

The code seems to compile and link fine if the order is reversed. Is
this a reasonable workaround for Sun? The order shouldn't matter on
other compilers, if it's just a function overload, although given the
large number of bind overloads, it could take some time to find the
order that works on Sun for all cases.


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