Re: [boost] Switch: return type deduction

From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-09 15:23:22

AMDG

Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger <at> isonews2.com> writes:

> > IMO, the whole thing is a minor concern.  I don't expect people to use
> > general purpose function objects with switch_.  
> 
> And because of that, readability, clarity and soundness of the design 
> become a minor concern?!

I didn't say that.  I could read either one without any difficulty.
Thus, it's a minor concern because the impact on the above is small.

> When looking at three headers; one with the 'switch', another one 
> defining 'F' and yet another one defining 'Default' it's completely 
> unintuitive that valid result types of 'Default' are constrained by 
> 'F::result_type', for instance.

OK.  Now I'm convinced.

> Another example: Let's say we want to compute a variant type as brought 
> up by Joel. Now we'd have to hard-wire knowledge about the cases inside 
> the function object. It's pretty obvious that it doesn't belong there.

Yep.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe