On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@hotmail.com> wrote:
During Boost.Local review, it was proposed to move the overload template out of Local and in Boost.Functional. What would the best name for it?
1) boost::overload_function (my preference) 2) boost::overloaded_function 3) boost::function_overload 4) boost::functional::overload (Boost.Functional seems to use boost:: directly and not boost::functional-- to mimic C++11 ).
I like boost::functional::overload. You can then add a convenience function make_overload() with creates one without having to specify
Yes, I will add boost::functional::make_overload as well.
the template parameters, and it will be at once intuitive-sounding and consistent with Boost naming conventions.
Reading the Functional docs: ``The header functional.hpp provides enhancements to the function object adapters specified in the C++ Standard Library (sections 20.3.5, through to 20.3.8). // (1) Using these adapters should be pretty much the same as using the standard function object adapters; the only differences are that you need to write boost:: instead of std::, and that you will get fewer headaches.'' Now boost/functional/overload.hpp instead will not match anything that is in the C++ Standard Library... is that an issue for adding overload to functional? I don't think so because overload is still within Functional's stated purpose: ``The Boost.Function library contains a family of class templates that are function object wrappers.'' Plus overload will not be in the functional.hpp header so (1) will still be true for stuff that is in functional.hpp. However, I'd like Functional's authors to comment if they have any concern with adding overload to Functional. Thanks. --Lorenzo