[Boost-users] Re: boost::unary_traits

From: Matthias Kaeppler (nospam_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-04 16:18:16

Matthias Kaeppler wrote:
> Are those two function templates also defined in call_traits.hpp? I 
> can't find them in the library docs.

type_traits.hpp -- found it :)

Alright, based on your valuable input, I have come up with this (those 
template meta programming facilities of boost are /amazing/!):

template< typename Operation >
class indirecter_unary
{
   typedef typename boost::unary_traits<Operation>::argument_type arg_type;
   typedef typename boost::unary_traits<Operation>::param_type param_type;
   typedef typename boost::unary_traits<Operation>::result_type result_type;
   typedef typename boost::unary_traits<Operation>::function_type 
function_type;
   typedef typename boost::remove_reference<typename 
boost::add_const<arg_type>::type>::type* ptr_type;
   function_type op_;
public:
   explicit indirecter_unary( param_type op ): op_(op) {}
   result_type operator() (ptr_type ptr) const {
      return op_(*ptr);
   }
};

Anything else coming to your mind what could be bad about this adaptor? 
I want it to be as robust as possible because I intend to use it a lot.

By the way (silly question):
Is it 'indirecter' or 'indirector'? I wasn't quite sure. Don't want to 
have typos in my classnames :)

Regards,
Matthias

-- 
Matthias Kaeppler