Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today (ends 2/23)

From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 13:51:55

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:46:48PM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>    BOOST_FCPP_DEFER_DEFINITIONS
> 
> Why is this needed? Why not just make them const and forget about
> linker errors with multiple translation units?

Cool; I didn't realize this.  I have been wanting to get rid of the
DEFER_DEFINITIONS stuff, and you have shown me how.  Thanks!

> Oh, and BTW, there's a significant disadvantage of FC++'s definition
> of plus compared to LL (and Phoenix). I notice that there is no
> return type deduction and both arguments are of the same type.
> Hence, it's not very friendly to C++'s rich set of types (numeric
> and others). IMO,
> 
>     T operator()( const T& x, const T& y ) const
> 
> is simplistic and wrong. It should be:
> 
>     result_of_plus<X, Y>::type
>     operator()(const X& x, const Y& y) const

This is probably a good idea; I hadn't considered this component when I
was integrating other Boost stuff into FC++ to prepare for the review.

-- 
-Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])