18 Aug
2004
18 Aug
'04
11:14 p.m.
"Bronek Kozicki" <brok@rubikon.pl> wrote in message news:4123D497.6060801@rubikon.pl...
Daniel James wrote:
boost::resolve<>::cast(&C::g); boost::resolve<int>::cast(&C::g);
But maybe that's a bit too jumbled up.
Personally I think that it's nice and simple :)
I like it too, now. I think trying to see it as a casting operation made it look inelegent. How about a simple name change: boost::overload<int>::select(&C::g) or boost::overload<int>::resolve(&C::g) ? For overload resolution by arity one could write: boost::overload< by_arity<3> >::resolve(&C::g) but that's still a bit cumbersome. Jonathan