From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 13:52:04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaakko Jarvi" <jajarvi_at_[hidden]>
> > Either way, I still think that the right approach is to write a "why
typeof"
> > paper instead of coming up with cunning workarounds for the language
> > shortcomings. (hint) :-)
> I agree.
How would typeof() solve this problem? You can deduce the return type, but
we need a way to treat the entire wad of overloads for any given name as a
single runtime entity to be resolved only at the point of invocation.
Another important extension I hadn't thought of...
-Dave