Boost logo

Boost :

From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-28 18:57:03


Tobias Schwinger wrote:

> Actually,
> function_type< int(...), tag<components<int(...)>, stdcall_cc>
> >::type
> is equivalent and doesn't read too bad, does it?
I was concerned more about the duplication of int(...).
here is a contrived example.
template<class M, class V, class I>
struct get_function :
   typename mpl::at<M, typename mpl::at<V, I>::type>::type,
       typename mpl::at<M, typename mpl::at<V, I>::type>::type
> {};

Of course a simple template could fix this:
template<class F, class Tag>
struct mutate_function :
 function_type<F, tag<mpl::if_<is_callable_builtin<F>, components<F>,
F>::type, Tag> > {};

>> > > How often are the cv tags likely to be used? They are redundant
>> > since for member functions this information is already available
>> > in the first parameter. If they are not a very common thing to
>> > need, I would propose simply removing them from the interface.
> It might not be wise to throw out that feature. Currently cv-qualified
> function types are illegal, but it is likely they will be allowed in
> some contexts in the future (there is a defect report on that part of
> the standard).
shouldn't that be handled by add_const/is_const?
> Further, these tags might come handy to work around BCC deficiencies.
I hope that would be an implementation detail.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at