From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-05 17:08:05
dan marsden <danmarsden <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Another question about the design / docs for the switch library under review.
> >From what I understand switch takes a runtime integral value, uses a PP
> generated switch statement, and
> calls out using some sort of MPL integral constant to specify the switch
> case to be served. This is pretty
> cool, as we seem to be travelling back from runtime into compile time world.
> The documentation is not specific about which specific type
> (e.g. mpl::int_<1> for case 1 matching in the
> underlying switch statement) is going to be used.
The type that is passed to f is whatever is in the list of cases.
> It looks to me like
> it would be convenient to overload
> operator() for each case I want to service, but this will be
> awkward to do without knowing the exact type
> that will be incoming.
If multiple cases are not grouped together, I don't
see how it's an advantage to use my library vs. using a
plain old hand-written switch. Would you mind elaborating?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk