From: dan marsden (danmarsden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-06 07:34:19
Steven Watanabe wrote:
>dan marsden <danmarsden <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> 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?
I think you're probably right, my original suggestion that multiple
overloads of operator() would be likely is probably wrong. I can only
suggest handling special cases such as divide by zero for example,
but I think my original suggestion may be a red herring.
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk