"Daniel James" <daniel@calamity.org.uk> wrote in message news:4123372C.50805@calamity.org.uk...
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
I can do it with this syntax:
boost::resolve_cast<int()>(&C::g); boost::resolve_cast<int(int)>(&C::g);
The nice thing about the original syntax was that you didn't have to specify the return type.
Yeah, I noticed this. :-( But I'd rather specify the return type than the arity.
Is it be possible to change this to something like this?
boost::resolve_cast<_()>(&C::g); boost::resolve_cast<_(int)>(&C::g);
So that the return type is just a placeholder.
Sure. But _ would presumably go in some namespace within boost, so it would be cumbersome to use. Maybe boost::resolve_cast<boost::irrelevant(int)>(&C::g); ;-)
An alternative would be:
boost::resolve<>::cast(&C::g); boost::resolve<int>::cast(&C::g);
But maybe that's a bit too jumbled up.
It looks a bit funny.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: