Boost logo

Boost :

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
> change
> just one. If the functions are bound separately, then there is a
> significant
> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at