Re: [boost] [challenge: Dynamic Overloads]

From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-09 07:17:10

On 10/9/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/9/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?
> >
>
> Does is "register" a reserved keyword?
>

Oh, yeah. Stupid me.

.register_() or .map() would say it better than .assign() or .add().
Let me make a case against 'add()'.

overload<...> functions;
functions.add(&foo1);
functions.add(&foo2);

That would imply that 'functions' would contain both foo1 and foo2 --
but if foo1 and foo2 have the same signature, then functions would not
contain both. 'add' does not convey the correct idiom, rather it
misleads the reader.

OTOH, register_() or map() would say that you're registering a
function or mapping a function to an appropriate signature or
signatures in the overloaded function wrapper:

overload<...> functions;
functions.map(&foo1);
functions.map(&foo2);

...
functions.register_(&foo1);
functions.register_(&foo2);

"register_" has many more letters than "map" though they both (at
least I think) convey the intentions better than add() or assign().

Then that way we can also do this:

functions << map(&foo1) << map(&foo2) ;
functions << register_(&foo1) << register_(&foo2);

HTH

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