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" <yg-boost- users@m...> wrote:
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