Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 13:18:09

> >>IMO, a runtime error here is just not acceptable.
> >
> > I disagree. I don't see compile-time error as an advantage here, but
only a
> > burden. I very much prefer to be able to write
> I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense... You are basically saying
> that, straight C++, if you have...
> void foo(int arg1, int arg2);
> And I use it as...
> foo(1);
> That C++ should give me a runtime error instead of the compiler doing
> the syntax checking.
> Are you serious?

I am discribing following sotuation:

void foo(int arg1, int arg2) {...}

void foo(int arg1) {...}

template<typename Params>
foo1( Params const& p) {
    if( p.has(asrg2) )
      foo( p[arg1], p[arg2] );
     foo( p[arg1] );
I think it's very convinient to be able to call different overloads of the
same function without using any MP tricks.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at