Re: [boost] [challenge: Dynamic Overloads]

From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 03:24:55

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Marco Costalba wrote:

[snip]

>> Yes I agree, also because 'overload' is already the name of the
>> struct so perhaps add_function() would be better but also functors
>> can be added so....perhaps just add() is the best, util now ;-)
>
> "add" looks good, until you "add" something outside the overload set.
> You can't.

That's why it's good.

> The right word is "assign".

I beg to differ.

> But then what's wrong with
> operator=?
>
>     f = &foo4;
>     f = &foo2;
>     f = &foo1;
>     f = &foo5;
>     f = &foo3;
>

At the end of this example one would expect f to only have one overload; 
foo3.

IMHO, "add" is good. If one really needs to use operators for adding 
overloads, why not use "+="?

/ Johan