Re: [boost] (Boost.)Overload vs Boost.Functional/OverloadedFunction (was Re: Status of proposed boost.overload?)

Subject: Re: [boost] (Boost.)Overload vs Boost.Functional/OverloadedFunction (was Re: Status of proposed boost.overload?)
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-26 08:39:10

Marco Cecchetti wrote
> 
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:15:38 +0100, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@>
> wrote:
> 
>> How's this different from:
>> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/functional/overloaded_function/doc/html/index.html
>>
> 
> Hi Lorenzo,
> (Boost.)Overload is a dynamic wrapper of multiple callable objects.
> All started from a Joel de Guzman's post where he showed a proof
> of concept of a thin-wrapper of several Boost.Functions.
> See: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/09/127906.php
> On that code base, I designed (Boost.)Overload that provides an
> interface similar to Boost.Function.
> 
> A first difference is that with (Boost.)Overload is possible
> to create an empty boost::overload object, and then set up
> callable targets at a later time, obviously the library provides
> methods for checking if a given callable target is empty.
> That matches exactly what Boost.Function does.
> Here's a basic example extracted from the tutorial:
> 

It seems that the two libraries do the same things a part for a slightly
different API. At a first look, your library API seems a super set of mine.
Therefore, if your library passes the review maybe it can simply extend my
OverloadedFunction adding default constructors, set(), etc (so we don't end
up with two different libraries serving the same purpose). BTW, do you have
something similar to my make_overloaded_function?

Ciao.
--Lorenzo

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Status-of-proposed-boost-overload-tp4500266p4505634.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.