<Arturo_Cuebas@bpmicro.com> wrote in message news:OF6215D845.F05336EF-ON86256EF3.005F9390-86256EF3.00613932@bpmicro.com...
The program below contains a compile error. Following the program you will find the typical fix then my idea for a library that facilitates a syntactically prettier fix.
<snip>
struct C { void F(char, char){} void F(int, int){} void F(char, int){} void F(char){} };
int main() { C o; bind( C::F, // error: which C::F? &o, _1); }
Typical solution:
bind(static_cast<void (C::*)(char)>(C::F), &o, _1);
<snip>
Here's my idea. If we had these:
<snip>
...etc; the bind call would look like this:
bind(resolve_cast1<char>(C::F), &o, _1);
<snip>
Is this worth the trouble?
I really like the idea. The main advantage is that you don't have to repeat the class name, which may be long. E.g. void (symmetric_filter_adapter_impl::*close) () = &symmetric_filter_adapter_impl::close;
Is it possible to implement a form without a number appended?
I can do it with this syntax: boost::resolve_cast<int()>(&C::g); boost::resolve_cast<int(int)>(&C::g); using function types as in Boost.Function. Your version would be the 'portable syntax'.
Is there a name better than resolve_cast?
Sounds okay to me.
This was tested only in VC7.1.
You need to add &'s to former member function pointers. Otherwise it looks okay to me. My version works on VC7.1, Como 4.3.3 and GCC 3.2. I'll post it if there's interest. Jonathan