From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-09 15:23:22
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk