Re: [Boost-users] [mpl] newbie question about if_c et al

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [mpl] newbie question about if_c et al
From: Jonathan Leonard (v-jleonard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 13:27:53

Nice idea!  I'll do this instead.

Thanks,
Jonathan

From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Ovanes Markarian
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:18 AM
To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [mpl] newbie question about if_c et al

actually, specialization and not overload should be correct. But idea remains the same.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ovanes Markarian <om_boost_at_[hidden]<mailto:om_boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
Just a question on your discussion. Why not to let mpl::if choose an appropriate overload, like:

//... somewher in c

private:
  inline void functionality_impl()const/or non const
  {
      //make impl here
  }

  inline void f()
  {
     f<typename mpl::if_c<SYNCH, ScopedCriticalSection, void*>::type>();
  }

 template<class T>
 void f();

 void f<ScopedCriticalSection>()
 {
    scs(cs);
    functionality_impl();
 }

 void f<void*>()
 {
   functionlity_impl();
 }

Greetings,
Ovanes