From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-12 12:24:08
On 10/12/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > So I would say a _possible_ policy is to not allow to register say
> > set(f6);
> > if is already registered a function with a "compatible" signature.
> This is wrong.
> I would have said:
> " a _possible_ policy is that a call like
> overwrites any exsisting function with the same signature *or with a
> compatible signature*"
Why is that better than your original wording? Your latter
description breaks from precedence set by std::set and map.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk