From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-05 10:35:27
--- Daniel Wallin wrote:
> Cromwell Enage wrote:
> > 1. Will BOOST_PARAMETER_IMPL(name) expand to
> > the name of the function that actually "owns"
> > the main body of code?
>
> No, or at least is doesn't at this point.
Which macro should I use then? For better or for
worse, some of my code needs to pass ArgumentPacks
directly to other Boost.Parameterized functions.
> > 2. Will there be a way to define a
> > Boost.Parameterized member function outside
> > the class definition? Or should we let the
> > compiler decide whether or not to inline such
> > a function?
>
> It is possible, but it's complicated by the
> return-type calculation. For example, the
> expansion-tail of:
>
> BOOST_PARAMETER_FUNCTION(
> (void), f, tag,
> (required (x, (float))
> (optional (y, (float), 0))
> )
>
> is something like:
>
> template <
> class ResultType
> , class Args
> , class x_type
> , class y_type
> >
> ResultType boost_param_default_21f(
> ResultType(*)()
> , Args const& args
> , x_type& x
> , y_type& y
> )
>
> right now. We could improve the name and get
> rid of the __LINE__ from it, but it's hard (or
> impossible) to get rid of ResultType argument.
That looks painful. It's okay, I don't need this
particular feature right now.
Cromwell D. Enage
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com