On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Nathan Ridge wrote:
Lorenzo Caminiti 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 the template parameters, and it will be at once intuitive-sounding and consistent with Boost naming conventions.
An overload is a function with a signature differing from others of the same name. What's being created here is a function object that represents an overload set. It's a collection of overloaded functions. "overload" is not correct as you're using it. "overloaded_function" is closer to correct, but I think that "overload_set" is the right term. You create an overload_set object and call it. When called, it does something like overload resolution, and forwards to the appropriate callable in the set.
I don't like the _set postfix- even if correct, I'd find it confusing as a user. I picked overloaded_function. Here's a first draft for the docs: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/closure/libs/functional/overloaded_f... Comments welcome. Thanks. --Lorenzo