Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] radix sort
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-23 06:11:48

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Rob Stewart <robertstewart_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> You're over-thinking this. I wasn't referring to UDTs. foo_int and
> foo<int> are different ways to spell a function targeting int. The latter
> happens to allow for use of the same identifier as the name, for different
> types, though it must be specialized.
> Specializing is most convenient when argument type deduction does the
> work, but then overloading may do the same for non-templated functions,
> depending on the arguments.

I never thought of that before (using foo<int> to process something that
isn't actually of int type,
but acts like it, instead of foo_int as you mention). That's an
interesting idea.
I'm worried that it would scare off potential users, thinking that function
only works on actual ints.
My experience is that people usually care more about sort performance for
than raw data types in operational code.

If you want to offer string behavior for UDTs, you can combine PTS, for
> known string types, with a fallback to a trait that indicates/bridges
> string behavior.
Does anybody have a suggestion as to what this string trait might be?
Assuming there is such a trait, should I eliminate the fallback to
std::sort for unidentified types?

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