From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-17 15:45:26
<Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:OF6215D845.F05336EF-ON86256EF3.005F9390-86256EF3.00613932_at_bpmicro.com...
> The program below contains a compile error. Following the program
you
> will find the typical fix then my idea for a library that
facilitates
> a syntactically prettier fix.
<snip>
> struct C
> {
> void F(char, char){}
> void F(int, int){}
> void F(char, int){}
> void F(char){}
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> C o;
> bind(
> C::F, // error: which C::F?
> &o, _1);
> }
>
> Typical solution:
>
> bind(static_cast<void (C::*)(char)>(C::F), &o, _1);
<snip>
> Here's my idea. If we had these:
<snip>
> ...etc; the bind call would look like this:
>
> bind(resolve_cast1<char>(C::F), &o, _1);
<snip>
> Is this worth the trouble?
I really like the idea. The main advantage is that you don't have to
repeat the class name, which may be long. E.g.
void (symmetric_filter_adapter_impl::*close) () =
&symmetric_filter_adapter_impl::close;
> Is it possible to implement a form without a number appended?
I can do it with this syntax:
boost::resolve_cast<int()>(&C::g);
boost::resolve_cast<int(int)>(&C::g);
using function types as in Boost.Function. Your version would be the
'portable syntax'.
> Is there a name better than resolve_cast?
Sounds okay to me.
> This was tested only in VC7.1.
You need to add &'s to former member function pointers. Otherwise it
looks okay to me. My version works on VC7.1, Como 4.3.3 and GCC 3.2.
I'll post it if there's interest.
Jonathan