From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-25 12:54:22
<Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> >> 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.
I'd definitely use it! I've found myself using unique function names where
it would be better to overload just to avoid the additional temporary
function pointer clutter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk