Re: [boost] [function types][review]

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 09:08:30

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Like taking the address of an overloaded function or function template
>> instantiation ??
>
> Surely you can always just declare your function type as a typedef in that 
> case, without going through function_type?
>
> function_type is only useful in that it unpacks an mpl sequence defining the 
> argument list into the function type, but that's only useful if you have an 
> the mpl sequence to begin with.  It's those situations I'm finding hard to 
> imagine at present.

I have a use for it -- but it's less useful if the sequence is
nonuniform and fails to include the class type of member functions ;-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com