[boost] Re: indirecter_unary, indirecter_binary

From: Fredrik Blomqvist (fredrik_blomqvist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 15:32:19

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:u1xar33ps.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> Matthias Kaeppler <nospam_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>
>>>> template< class Fun >
>>>> class indirect_fun
>>>> {
>>>>     Fun fun;
>
>> This is too specific for Matthias' purposes (doesn't work on
>> containers of iterators or smart pointers).  Maybe something like:
>>
>> template< class Fun >
>> struct indirect_fun
>> {
>>    indirect_fun( Fun f ) : fun(f)
>>    { }
>>
>>    template< class T >
>>    typename
>>       result_of<Fun(typename pointee<T>::type)>::type
>>    operator()( T const& r ) const
>>    { return fun( *r ); }
>
> yeah, this is good stuff, mind if I borrow it?
>
Wouldn't it be a good thing to use the full result_of "protocol" as
specified in the docs (and more specifically in the N1454) ?

Regards
// Fredrik Blomqvist