From: Jaakko Jarvi (jajarvi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 14:17:43
> 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.
Having something like this:
struct foo {
int operator()(int);
double operator()(double);
};
typeof would solve the problem of finding out the return type after bind:
The result of, say,
bind(foo, _1)
is, greatly simplified:
class binder {
F f; // foo will be stored here
public:
template<class T>
typeof(f(t)) // here typeof helps
operator()(T t) { return f(t); }
};
But for the problem what was first discussed, having a way to express a
whole set of overloaded functions (including function templates),
typeof is of no help.
> Another important extension I hadn't thought of...
Yes.
Jaakko