Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?

Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?
From: Jeffrey Bosboom (jbosboom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-25 15:54:54

Stefan Strasser wrote:
> this is just an idea off the top of my head, I haven't thought this through, 
> but has the committee ever considered making functions overloadable by their 
> return type?
> 
> void f(); // 1
> int f(); // 2
> 
> int main(){
>   f(); //resolves to 1
>   int b=f(); //resolves to 2
> }

That's a pretty drastic language change to solve an issue that is really 
a library problem.  (Besides, what if I want to call function 2 for its 
side effects and ignore its return type?  Even the ugly "(void)f()" 
doesn't seem to do what I want.)

--Jeffrey Bosboom