Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [functional] adding overload
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-31 19:23:22

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Tue Jan 17 2012, Lorenzo Caminiti <> wrote:
>> as a user. I picked overloaded_function.
>> Here's a first draft for the docs:
>> Comments welcome.
> What are the use-cases for such a beast?

Just the case that you have a bunch of functions (function pointers,
function references, and monomorphic functors) with different names
and you want to combine them into an API with a single overloaded
function name.

History: The idea was originally raised as a side discussion on the
limitation that local functions cannot be polymorphic . No
Boost.Local reviewer raised concerns on adding overloaded_function and
the consensus was to potentially add it under Boost.Functional.
However, my impression was that all reviewers saw this as a "nice to
have" (so no object but not strong preference for addition either). I
since then asked Boost.Functional authors (and Boosters in general) if
there is any concern with adding this functionality but I didn't get
much of a reply :(

Do you have any concern?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at