Date: 2004-08-18 12:11:18
>"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I don't buy the ideas that involve using function types as in
>> because it requires specifying the return type, which is irrelevant.
> Current pratice is to speficy the entire signature, including the
> (irrelevant) return type and the (redundant) class name. Arturo's
> suggestion gets rid of the return type and class name, but introduces
> the (irrelevant) arity.
When overloads differ only in the number of parameters and not
the parameter types, arity becomes the only thing that's relevant.
That's why I thought the ideal use would look like this when that's
And like this when it's not:
I doubt that's possible though. :(
> Using function types eliminates the class name but keeps the return
> type. So neither is quite right, althought I tend to prefer using
> function types.
whatever_cast becomes more useful the further away we get from the
static_cast form. IMO, the arity-specifying form is further away from
that than the function-signature form. Consider that the return type
can have a super-long name:
<long_name_templatized_type<unsigned long, unsigned char> (char)>
> The essential information that needs to be supplied is just a
Is it possible to implement whatever_cast in such a way that it mimics
what mpl::list does - in its acceptance of a variable number of template
parameters - but produces a function?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk