From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-20 13:21:01
Daniel Walker wrote:
> Still, for compilers that Boost.Typeof doesn't support, it would be
> nice if result_of could handle Boost.Lambda at least. More recent
> libraries and future libraries could consider adopting a previously
> existing practice (result<F(Args) or sig<tuple<Args> >) that result_of
> can support without typeof.
IMO, you have this backwards. Rather than patch result_of to handle
lambda, lambda function objects should be modified to follow the
result_of convention. It's now standard, after all.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk