On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Sorry, I didn't have much time to write this email sooner.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
On 10/17/2012 07:50 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
That's a bit restricting. I could really use a overloaded_function that received a MPL or Fusion sequence as well.
Why do you need to use MPL and Fusion sequences? What's the use case?
This would happen if the overloads are computed by metaprogramming instead of being hard-coded into the source.
Yes. That's exactly the case. I'm writing a Java Binding library, and all I need to pass at runtime is three variables to create an overload set that is mapped to functions in Java. And at compile time I need to specify all the function overloads. Since it is not necessary, I don't want the user to create all function objects seperately, since their constructions are all the same. I need to pass just a sequence of function prototypes and the three variables I mentioned and I can just return a boost.overloadedfunction constructed by metaprogramming.
This is fine. Also as Steven mentioned using Fusion sequences might provide an API to support generic algorithms on the overloaded_function type which is useful on itself. I'm willing to add either the MPL or Fusion sequence to the API (it should be backward compatible). However, I'd like to see some example code as a use case against which I can implement such a functionality. Can you please post, in a form or another, the code that you are trying to program? Thanks, --Lorenzo