From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-25 00:44:37
<Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > When I see
> > boost::overload_resolve2<int, char>(&V::f)
> > it reminds me of the windows API functions that end in 'Ex'. I
> > 'what was wrong with the first
> > version of overload_resolve'?
> >From best to worst IMO:
> overload_resolve2<int, char>(&V::f)
I could learn to live with it. But I'd prefer resolve_overload2 -- it
sounds more like a command.
> overload2_resolve<int, char>(&V::f)
Looks to much like Food2Go :-)
> overload<int, char>::resolve(&V::f)
As I said, I think I like this best.
> overload_resolve<int, char>()(&V::f)
Look's funny. And are you sure there is no runtime penalty?
> overload_resolve<argtypes<int, char> >(&V::f)
Too compilicated ... wait ... I suggested it. Still too complicated.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk