From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-14 04:31:01
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > I think that binding multiple signatures
> > to a single function object by default, without the user explicitly
> > requesting it, may not be a good thing. My initial preference is to
> > allow ref() for these situations, as Marco has suggested, but I'll
> > reserve judgement until I can better see where y'all are going with
> > it.
> I suspect that there are really two tools here. One which allows
> separate function objects to be bound to each signature, more like
> a fusion sequence or something. The other binds all overloads to
> a single object. Neither one is easily implementable in terms of the other.
> If all the signatures are bound at once, then it is difficult to later
> just one. If the functions are bound separately, then there is a
> size overhead compared to using a single object.
Great point Steven.
Yes, my proposal would not let one rebind signatures separately (not easily
at least). If this is an useful thing (really, I do not know), then
please Marco, disregard most of my comments,
probably I'm really looking for something else.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk