Brian McNamara <lorgon@cc.gatech.edu> writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:35:38PM +0200, Peter Dimov wrote:
Yes, I understand the Long-Term Goal (if not its utmost importance), but your approach doesn't scale to other function<>-like entites.
void f(); my_function<void()> g(f); your_function<void()> h(g);
g == h; //??? g.contains(h); // false h.contains(g); // true
It's limited to the one and only function<> (and you can't even ask a function<> whether it contains another function<>, right?)
I am also curious about how cases like
void f(int,int,int); function<void(int,int)> tmp1 = bind(&f,5,_1,_2); function<void(int,int)> tmp2 = bind(&f,_1,_2,7); bind(tmp1,_1,7) == bind(tmp2,5,_1) // ?
(ought to) work. (If my intent isn't clear above, I am trying to bind the first and third arguments of f() in two different ways. Presumably the LHS and RHS of the operator== on the last line have different types, despite the fact that they "are the same function", for some definition of sameness.)
Just to throw more darts at the idea, building the composite function object could be an expensive way to arrive at an immediate bool result if copying the function objects was a nontrivial operation. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com