AMDG Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger <at> isonews2.com> writes:
IMO, the whole thing is a minor concern. I don't expect people to use general purpose function objects with switch_.
And because of that, readability, clarity and soundness of the design become a minor concern?!
I didn't say that. I could read either one without any difficulty. Thus, it's a minor concern because the impact on the above is small.
When looking at three headers; one with the 'switch', another one defining 'F' and yet another one defining 'Default' it's completely unintuitive that valid result types of 'Default' are constrained by 'F::result_type', for instance.
OK. Now I'm convinced.
Another example: Let's say we want to compute a variant type as brought up by Joel. Now we'd have to hard-wire knowledge about the cases inside the function object. It's pretty obvious that it doesn't belong there.
Yep. In Christ, Steven Watanabe