Steven Watanabe <steven <at> providere-consulting.com> writes:
void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND(i), char c)
or
void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(char c)
depending on whether binding is needed?
I haven't thought about it too hard, but I think it should be possible to handle both. void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND((ref i)), char c) could expand to ...
Wow! I like it. I haven't implemented it yet but the sketch looks absolutely correct. Now the problem is convincing people to use TWOOOOOO(LOOOOOOONG macros ;) It's always possible to #define LFN BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION #define LFN_BIND(args) BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_BIND(args) #define LFN_DECL(f) BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_DECL(f) and then void LFN (LFN_BIND(i), char c) { } LFN_DECL(f) but I doubt that all will accept it. -- Alexander