----- Original Message ----- From: "Giovanni Piero Deretta" <gpderetta@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
If another boost library want to overload interrupt(T) for other types that do not provide a member interrupt function, the developer needs just to
template <typename T> typename boost::enable_if<a_specific_condition<T>, void
::type interrupt(T& act) { // ... }
I think this would break horribly if two libraries define slightly overlapping conditions, so I do not think it is a great idea. It might work with non auto concepts in c++0x.
Do you prefer to have the same algorithm in different namespaces? Overlaping conditions are possible in the same way that overloads can make ambigous a call. The single difference is that instead of typing your arguments you are adding constraints respect to the concept the parameter is a model of. That is, Imagine we define a function working for Threads at the boost scope interrupt(boost::thread& act); Now I define a joiner that can also be interruped template <typename T> interrupt(boost::interthreads::joiner<T>& act); Both functions have a common semantic. Overloading should works well, but we need to do partial specialization. Every joiner<T> is interrupted the same way, no mater the type T. Am I missing something? Vicente