On 10/8/07, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Marco Costalba wrote:
On 10/7/07, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
boost::overload<Signatures> f;
// assign functions in any order f.add_overload(foo4);
Given that the entire point is to hold overloads, isn't "add_overload" a bit redundant? Why not just "add"?
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. The right word is "assign". But then what's wrong with operator=?
f = &foo4; f = &foo2; f = &foo1; f = &foo5; f = &foo3;
It has the right semantics and is very idiomatic. This is how Boost.Function does it. Only in this case, we can have many mappings instead of just one.
I would prefer 'add' or 'assign' here because 'overload' is a kind of a container while fooX are single functions. My intuitive idea of operator=() is that at the end what is at the left is == of what is at the right, in other words: std::string a; a = "apple"; // now I would think 'a' is an apple a = "blueberry"; // now 'a' is *no more* an apple, is a blueberry assert(a=="apple"); // ??? strange last assignement was a bluebarry here! So, because foo1 != foo2 !=...foox I would find more appropiate 'add', 'assign', 'register', 'push' more then 'set', or '=' IOW I see operator=() more naturally used between a variable and a value or another variable of the same type, not to add elements to, say, a vector. std::vector<int> v; v = 3; v = 10; v = 7; Strange! Marco