Thanks Douglar and Rainer for your response....I tried tracing the
production filled my trashcan with parse trees sketches but had to
give up.
I was reading the Herb Sutter's article Generalizing Observer in
CUJ where he uses this functionlity to implement a generic call
back. But I have some issues:
By using this library we can eliminate the function name
dependency introduced by using a call back interface and can call
any function which matches the signature. But wouldn't this cause a
maintainance problem? Using the call back interface defines the
name of the function, it is easy to find the execution block for an
event. Using this library it becomes a more of a coding convention
than a compile time check.
It may have removed the cost of virtual function call but I
think the performance would be offset by the extra call to operator
(). So though it is a very good feature of language, does it not
open doors for more cost?
Thanks,
Shyam
--- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer Deyke"
shyamemani wrote:
None of the 'declaration' rules also seem to parse the tokens 'float (int,int) (I know I am missing something here).
'float (int, int)' is a type. In particular, it is type of the function 'f' if 'f' is declared like this:
float f(int, int);
-- Rainer Deyke - rainerd@e... - http://eldwood.com