"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:cc8gss$7c8$1@sea.gmane.org...
result_of<operator_plus(int,int)>::type z = operator_plus()(x,y); result_of<operator_minus(int,int)>::type z = operator_minus()(x,y); result_of<operator_multiplies(int,int)>::type z = operator_multiplies()(x,y);
One problem with this scheme is getting traits information out of it. For instance the original std::plus has std::plus<T>::first_argument_type. If operator_plus is a plain class, operator_plus(A,B) is in fact just three encoded parameters so always has to be wrapped in something if passed as one parameter, (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not too up on function object template params), whereas operator_plus<A,B> works as one parameter and as a traits class. result_of<operator_plus<A,B> >::type seems to be a lot simpler to deal with in this respect than result_of<operator_plus(A,B) >:: type Apologies for sending 4 posts in a row. I would like to use 'official methods' if possible, but this whole area is quite important to my physical-quantities project. regards Andy Little