On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:53 AM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
I have been thinking if I can do something similar to this with Boost.Local. Given that local classes cannot have template members I can't do too much... However, I _could_ allow to specify multiple types (but not a generic type) for a local function parameter:
void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_PARAMS(types(int, char) x, types(double, std::string, int) y, long z) { std::cout << x << y << z << std::endl; } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_NAME(l)
Then I can do:
l(1, 1.2, -1); l('a', 1.2, -1); l('a', "bcd", -1); ... // and all the other parameter type combinations
types(...) could accept a generic number of types but all these types will have to be known (and not generic as for templates).
[...]
This is more overloading than polymorphism... bus still: 1) Compiles on ISO C++. 2) Declares l locally (information hiding). 3) Does not repeat l declaration multiple times (avoid code duplication). 4) l is """effectively polymorphic""" (in between _many_ quotes :) ) in its argument type num as it accepts both doubles and std::strings (but no more than these two types :( ). (I will not actually claim that such a local function l polymorphic in num's type.)
What do you think?
Better than nothing (=strict monomorphicity)! I would assume the types(...) syntax is only optional, correct? Not related to the above discussion: Bound variables' types are deduced using Boost.TypeOf; is it possible right now to explicitly specify their type? - Jeff