[boost] Re: Implicitly-Callable Functions in C++0x?

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-12 03:11:40

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "Paul A Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:001501c40795$ce631ce0$0c010101_at_hetp3...
> 
>>>From a very quick study of this, this radical proposal avoids nasty
>>brackets "pi()" by adding a new C++ keyword implicit to make "pi" have
>>the same effect.
> 
> 
> Considering what Daniel can do, I don't think the math constant part of the
> proposal brings anything.

Basically, I agree. When I sorted out the VC-issues and finished the 
documentation, I'll have a deeper look at the ICF-proposal and post some 
comments to csc++. FWIW, my gut feeling is that the proposal it not 
worth the trouble.

However: I can do many, but not all things proposed. There is one thing 
(syntax) that I cannot do but that I like very much:

pi<T>

In my constant library, this is spelled 'pi.get<T>()'. Alternatives that 
don't work: 'static_cast<T>(pi)', 'T(pi)', 'pi.operator T()'. If anyone 
has a cool idea how this can be improved, let me know :)

Regards, Daniel