On 6 May, 08:57, mcostalba <mcosta...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thanks Roman for your link.
>
> Actually there are some good ideas in that implementation and I will
> try to borrow a few of them...
>
> Unfortunatly it does not fit the bill 100%, indeed:
>
> - Implicit argument type conversion should be avoided in my context,
> due to some ambiguites that can arise when there is more then one
> candidate among the overload set. So signature matching would be ok to
> be strict.
Alexandre Courpron modified is_call_possible to create
is_exact_call_possible. You can find implementation here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/bd047be2c70b31f8/a56a91737e3f8c7c#a56a91737e3f8c7c
> - It seems you have to add a specialization for each argument arity,
> in my implementation I would try to avoid this.
Yes, you can use variadic templates (if your compiler sup****ts then)
or boost::preprocessor to automate generation of specializations.
> Anyhow, for interested people, many of the ideas, included overloading
> comma operator
>
> template <typename type, typename U>
> U& operator,(U&, void_exp_result<type>);
>
> to workaround void return types are also exposed in "Detecting the
> Arity of Function Objects"
>
> under the link
>
> http://boost-sandbox.sourceforge.net/libs/proto/doc/html/boost_proto/...
>
> where an equivalent solution is do***ented by Eric Nibler in his
> boost::proto library.
Nice one, I haven't seen it. It uses clever trick with conversion to
a function pointer.
IMHO, it would be nice if someone added is_call_possible and
is_exact_call_possible to boost.
Roman Perepelitsa.
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
