From: Marco Costalba (mcostalba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-30 14:46:06
On 9/30/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Also Dispatcher::operator=() should be 'stacked' in some way though...but how?
> Remember that operator=() can be implemented as part of the class --
> and it can be overloaded much like the other operators. That means:
> > Perhaps if the key of the map is the function signature could be
> > possible first find a match with the supplied arguments and then call
> > the operator(), should be safe in that case. A (big) downside is that
> > you forget implicit conversions this way.
> This is one problem with the Fusion map approach, but something I
> perceive as really a non-issue -- because after all, the goal of the
> library is to provide a type-safe way of implementing a dispatcher.
On the other way a dispatcher as long as feeds arguments to a
wrapped-in function is natural IMHO asking to act as transparent as
possible between the argument values and the target function, i.e.
should be a perfect forwarder once target function has been selected
among the stored set.
Under this view if a function
void foo(std::string v);
can be invoked with
so should (IMHO) accept the foo wrapper and, at the end, the
dispatcher that stores the wrapper. Just a questionable opinion ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk