Johan Nilsson wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Marco Costalba wrote:
[snip]
Yes I agree, also because 'overload' is already the name of the struct so perhaps add_function() would be better but also functors can be added so....perhaps just add() is the best, util now ;-) "add" looks good, until you "add" something outside the overload set. You can't.
That's why it's good.
The right word is "assign".
Why is it good?
I beg to differ.
But then what's wrong with operator=?
f = &foo4; f = &foo2; f = &foo1; f = &foo5; f = &foo3;
At the end of this example one would expect f to only have one overload; foo3.
IMHO, "add" is good. If one really needs to use operators for adding overloads, why not use "+="?
Oh my, getting to be a bicycle shed ;-) Ok, I don't have a strong opinion either way :-) To be honest, I'm not quite sure with all these if they cannot be made to handle polymorphic functions. It kinda defeats the purpose if we need to have a different syntax for polymorphic function objects and function pointers/mem function pointers. So, in the end, an explicit form of "set" is still better, IMO. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net