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

From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-12 11:54:29

"Daniel Frey" <d.frey_at_[hidden]> skrev i meddelandet
news:c2rrjl$ero$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> > "Paul A Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:001501c40795$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>

But you don't need the entire Implicitly Callable Functions just to have
constants. What about templated constants, if that is what you want?

template<class T>
T const pi;

template<>
float const pi = 3.14159f;

template<>
double const pi = ... ;

Bo Persson