Re: [boost] [challenge: Dynamic Overloads]

From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-09 03:27:35

On 10/8/07, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Marco Costalba wrote:
> >
> > Because the following line
> >
> > if (a = b)  // here = instead of == is intended
> >     assert(a==b);
> >
> > should never fail for any properly defined operator=() and
> > operator==() it derives that operator=() as proposed for our overload
> > does not satisfy the above very intuitive concepts (because &foo1 !=
> > &foo2) so I would say it cannot be called 'idiomatic' for this case.
>
> Yep. Agreed. See my other post why I am convinced your intuition
> is correct :-) No need to convince me more ;)
>

How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?

overloads<void(int), void(std::string)> functions;
functions.register(&foo1);
functions.register(&foo2);

?

This way we can also have something like:

functions << register(&foo1)
    << register(&foo2);

?

The above suggestion follows the notion of directives, which are being
passed to an object to invoke some sort of behavior. This might be
similar to something like:

std::cout << std::endl;

-- 
Dean Michael C. Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.
[http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/]
[mikhailberis_at_[hidden]]
[[phone]]
[[phone]]