Re: [boost] [review] Conversion review ends today

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Conversion review ends today
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-01 01:44:10

On 01/09/2011 2:33, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> Create a new class that keeps references to all such function objects, and
>> >  implements implicit conversions to each of them. Then you can use an
>> >  instance of this class as an "overloaded function object".
>> >
> Wouldn't that result in a conversion ambiguity?  How would the compiler know
> which function object to implicitly convert to when invoking operator()?

Of course, that technique only works as long as the function call is not 
ambiguous. I confess not having read the entire thread; I just assumed 
that this was implied by "function overloads", same overload resolution 
rules that work for regular functions do apply in this case.

Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.blogspot.com