Subject: Re: [boost] [functional] Interested in can_be_called<F, Sig> metafunction?
From: TONGARI (tongari95_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-06 03:22:37
2012/11/6 Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]>
> On 11/5/2012 9:12 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> > 2012/11/6 Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]>
> >> On 11/4/2012 5:15 AM, TONGARI wrote:
> >>> Hi there,
> >>> I've used this metafunction for some time, and it just fitted my need.
> >>> Recently, I make up my mind to complete it, willing to put it in
> >>> Synopsis
> >>> --------------
> >>> can_be_called<F, Sig>
> >>> F
> >>> Any callable type to test, even member-function ptr.
> >>> Sig
> >>> The desired calling signature, function-type only.
> >> There is a feature request for this already in Trac, with source code
> >> attached.
> >> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3783
> >> Sadly, it was opened 3 years ago.
> > Surely I'm aware of this, but I don't think it'd work out-of-box, would
> What do you mean? If you mean that the attached code needs polish, I
> guess you're probably right, but it's been 3 years since I wrote it. :-)
That was my first try that doesn't compile, but it's due to the disability
in file iteration for local include path on the compiler I used, but it's
easy to fix anyway.
And some misreading in your code gave me the impression that it won't work
properly, but surely it does work :-)
Regarding the difference, mine also concerns the return type (it's useful
in my case) and capable of member-function ptr (not sure it's useful or
not) and may work for some contrived cases...
> If your code is polished, has docs, and tests, then maybe you can attach
> it to the ticket and ping Tobias. If he doesn't respond, then I guess
> Function_types is looking for a new maintainer, and you could be it.
But I don't want it in FunctionTypes, Functional seems a better place to me
and could just become Functional/Can Be Called as other Functional/XXX.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk