12 Oct
2007
12 Oct
'07
4:24 p.m.
On 10/12/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com> wrote:
So I would say a _possible_ policy is to not allow to register say
set(f6);
if is already registered a function with a "compatible" signature.
This is wrong.
I would have said:
" a _possible_ policy is that a call like
f.set(f6);
overwrites any exsisting function with the same signature *or with a compatible signature*"
Why is that better than your original wording? Your latter description breaks from precedence set by std::set and map. --Michael Fawcett