From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-12 15:01:46
Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>> I assume you're using id<..>'s to distinguish signatures even if
>> they agree at every other position. My initial guess is that
>> operator()'s with the same id<..> would correspond to functions
>> having the same name. But then I see that each operator() seems to
>> have a unique id<..>, which make me wonder where the overloading is.
> All ids are unique. This is how I can deduce a signature of every
> function without ambiguity. Of course, these ids change original
> overloads relation between functions but you can "bring it back" at
> call time:
> Fsm fsm;
> fsm(enable_all(), Passive(), EvActivate());
> enable_all is not yet in tarball but it's very simple. You just make
> sure every id<N> has a constructor that accept enable_all.
Why is it called an overload set, then? Because all the functions are overloads
>> I'm not so sure I see how, or if, this relates to overload
>> resolution. In addition to the associative sequence operators, I
>> would expect to have a metafunction that takes an argument list and
>> determines which overload is called.
> Hmm, I'm not sure I can implemenent such metafunction because of
> complexity of C++ rules. I have to look at details.
I'm not really asking for you to provide this metafunction; I'm mostly trying to
figure out what your implementation of overload sets has to do with the overload
sets described in the standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk