Re: [boost] BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION

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)
> 
> or
> 
> 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
correct.
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)

and then

void LFN (LFN_BIND(i), char c)
{
} LFN_DECL(f)

but I doubt that all will accept it.
--
Alexander