From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 03:39:40
Johan Nilsson wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> Marco Costalba wrote:
>>> 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".
Why is it good?
> I beg to differ.
>> But then what's wrong with
>> 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;
> IMHO, "add" is good. If one really needs to use operators for adding
> overloads, why not use "+="?
Oh my, getting to be a bicycle shed ;-) Ok, I don't have a strong
opinion either way :-) To be honest, I'm not quite sure with all
these if they cannot be made to handle polymorphic functions. It
kinda defeats the purpose if we need to have a different syntax
for polymorphic function objects and function pointers/mem function
pointers. So, in the end, an explicit form of "set" is still better,
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk