Date: 2004-08-25 10:12:57
>> 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.
Yeah, I like that better too.
>> overload2_resolve<int, char>(&V::f)
> Looks to much like Food2Go :-)
>> overload_resolve<int, char>()(&V::f)
> Look's funny. And are you sure there is no runtime penalty?
No, I'm not sure.
Is this worth officially "proposing"? It's so trivial and is useful
so infrequently that I'm tempted to just finalize it, throw it into
our utility header lib here at my work, stop wasting everyone's time,
and forget about it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk