From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-24 13:23:43
"Daniel James" <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:412B71E1.5050009_at_calamity.org.uk...
> Arturo_Cuebas_at_[hidden] wrote:
> >>I think Daniel James had the best idea:
> >>
> >> boost::overload<int>::resolve(&V::f)
> >
> >
> > I've learned to like it.
>
> I think I prefer your original style:
>
> boost::overload_resolve1<int>(&V::f)
>
> It looks more straight forward to me. But, I tend to use the
portable
> style for boost::function, so I'm probably just used to it.
We've come full circle then.
When I see
boost::overload_resolve2<int, char>(&V::f)
it reminds me of the windows API functions that end in 'Ex'. I think
'what was wrong with the first
version of overload_resolve'?
Jonathan