From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-18 18:06:23
"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> > <Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> > > that than the function-signature form. Consider that the return
type
> > > can have a super-long name:
> > >
> > > whatever_cast
> > > <long_name_templatized_type<unsigned long, unsigned char>
(char)>
> > > (&P::f)
> >
> > True, but in my personal experience this happen less often then
long
> > class names.
>
> What about when the return type is a typedef in the class with a
> long name or is unutterable? (The latter often happens with
> complicated metaprogramming expressions.)
Sure, I've written plenty of functions like that. I guess I don't bind
them very often, for some reason. Anyway, I'm now convinced the return
type should be dropped.
Jonathan