From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-02 04:27:44
Steven Watanabe <steven <at> providere-consulting.com> writes:
> void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND(i), char c)
> void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(char c)
> depending on whether binding is needed?
> I haven't thought about it too hard, but I think it should be possible
> to handle both.
> void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND((ref i)), char c)
> could expand to
Wow! I like it. I haven't implemented it yet but the sketch looks absolutely
Now the problem is convincing people to use TWOOOOOO(LOOOOOOONG macros ;)
It's always possible to
#define LFN BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION
#define LFN_BIND(args) BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND(args)
#define LFN_DECL(f) BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_DECL(f)
void LFN (LFN_BIND(i), char c)
but I doubt that all will accept it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk