From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-18 07:33:13
John Maddock wrote:
>>>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 ;-)
>>In fact, at this very point (type synthesis - "function_type") the input
>>sequence does include it ;-).
> Right but decomposition does not? Whatever it's behaviour it should be
> symmetrical, if composition has the class name in the list, then
> decomposition should have it there as well.
'function_type' and 'function_type_signature' are symmetrical counterparts (and
work/are sequences containing all subtypes involved).
The templates in the "Decomposition" section of the docs, however, provide
access to particular subtypes, such as the result, the class or those that make
up the parameter list.
Dave's point is (I hope I summarize this accurately, please correct me if not)
to put the class type into the sequence of parameters adding (cv-qualifications
- but we all agree on this - and) a reference to it.
I, however, am not convinced this is an improvement: While this may unify things
in some cases it makes things more difficult in others (considering the case
where we want a "this pointer" and not a reference, for example).
I'll get back to this, later today.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk