From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-07 08:29:37
John Maddock wrote:
>> I actually consider this to be a vital usability feature. It would be
>> an unpleasant surprise if it's not going to make it into comforming
>> TR1 implementations. Or did I misunderstand your earlier comment?
>
> I don't know if it's possible to support this, and to support the
> named-return-type syntax as well.
It's possible with some enable_if tricks. One needs to eliminate the R/F
overload when F is a function pointer that returns R and is covered by one
of the additional overloads.
> I also don't see anything in the TR1 text that requires this to be
> supported... Peter?
It's not required in TR1. It is up to the implementation to make bind "just
do the right thing" in such situations: overloaded functions where it's
possible to disambiguate, nonstandard calling conventions, extern "C",
nonstandard function object extensions.