From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-10 18:49:13
Peter Dimov writes:
> John Maddock wrote:
>>> I actually consider this to be a vital usability feature. It would be
>>> an unpleasant surprise if it's not going to make it into comforming
>>> TR1 implementations. Or did I misunderstand your earlier comment?
>> I don't know if it's possible to support this, and to support the
>> named-return-type syntax as well.
> It's possible with some enable_if tricks. One needs to eliminate the R/F
> overload when F is a function pointer that returns R and is covered by one
> of the additional overloads.
>> I also don't see anything in the TR1 text that requires this to be
>> supported... Peter?
> It's not required in TR1. It is up to the implementation to make bind "just
> do the right thing" in such situations: overloaded functions where it's
> possible to disambiguate, nonstandard calling conventions, extern "C",
> nonstandard function object extensions.
Thanks for the clarification! IMO this list is worth putting into our
TR1 bind docs, so that users have more chances to make an educated
choice between "native" and Boost bind implementation.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering