From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 03:57:59
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:52:51 +0200, Joel de Guzman
> <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As I said in my other post, it's better not to rely on mpl or
>> fusion for low level libs like this. I gave a proof of
>> concept. The challenge is to make it complete. The ideal is
>> 1) Not rely on any libraries at all except boost.function
>> whereby making it trim and clean (it's ok to use Boost PP**).
>> Yep, you can get rid of the need for tuples, but if that
>> makes it too painful, I guess it's ok to use it. It's a fairly
>> simple class anyway.
>> 2) Another challenge is to make it usable on as many compilers
>> as possible. The first ideal is more important that this one.
>> Perhaps it's ok to forget antiquated compilers without partial
>> specialization, etc.
>> (**You'll still have to expand the overload_function(s) for
>> N arguments, where N is the maximum the library can handle)
> As Marco Costalba, I worked a little on a possible extension
> of boost::function in order to support overloading.
Brilliant! Looks good!
-- 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