|
Boost : |
From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-18 18:06:23
"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> > <Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> > > that than the function-signature form. Consider that the return
type
> > > can have a super-long name:
> > >
> > > whatever_cast
> > > <long_name_templatized_type<unsigned long, unsigned char>
(char)>
> > > (&P::f)
> >
> > True, but in my personal experience this happen less often then
long
> > class names.
>
> What about when the return type is a typedef in the class with a
> long name or is unutterable? (The latter often happens with
> complicated metaprogramming expressions.)
Sure, I've written plenty of functions like that. I guess I don't bind
them very often, for some reason. Anyway, I'm now convinced the return
type should be dropped.
Jonathan
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk