24 Aug
2004
24 Aug
'04
6:23 p.m.
Arturo_Cuebas@bpmicro.com wrote:
I think Daniel James had the best idea:
boost::overload<int>::resolve(&V::f)
I've learned to like it.
I think I prefer your original style:
boost::overload_resolve1<int>(&V::f)
It looks more straight forward to me. But, I tend to use the
"Daniel James" <daniel@calamity.org.uk> wrote in message news:412B71E1.5050009@calamity.org.uk... portable
style for boost::function, so I'm probably just used to it.
We've come full circle then. When I see boost::overload_resolve2<int, char>(&V::f) it reminds me of the windows API functions that end in 'Ex'. I think 'what was wrong with the first version of overload_resolve'? Jonathan