Alexander Nasonov wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
I assume you're using id<..>'s to distinguish signatures even if they agree at every other position. My initial guess is that operator()'s with the same id<..> would correspond to functions having the same name. But then I see that each operator() seems to have a unique id<..>, which make me wonder where the overloading is.
All ids are unique. This is how I can deduce a signature of every function without ambiguity. Of course, these ids change original overloads relation between functions but you can "bring it back" at call time:
Fsm fsm; fsm(enable_all(), Passive(), EvActivate()); ^^^^^^^^^^^^ enable_all is not yet in tarball but it's very simple. You just make sure every id<N> has a constructor that accept enable_all.
Why is it called an overload set, then? Because all the functions are overloads of operator()?
I'm not so sure I see how, or if, this relates to overload resolution. In addition to the associative sequence operators, I would expect to have a metafunction that takes an argument list and determines which overload is called.
Hmm, I'm not sure I can implemenent such metafunction because of complexity of C++ rules. I have to look at details.
I'm not really asking for you to provide this metafunction; I'm mostly trying to figure out what your implementation of overload sets has to do with the overload sets described in the standard. Jonathan