On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 12:37 AM Jean-Louis Leroy via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
During the review, Joaquin suggested changing the syntax for declaring and overriding methods, from:
BOOST_OPENMETHOD(poke, (virtual_ptr<Animal>, std::ostream&), void);
BOOST_OPENMETHOD_OVERRIDE( poke, (virtual_ptr<Bulldog> dog, std::ostream& os), void) { ... }
to:
BOOST_OPENMETHOD(poke, void(virtual_ptr<Animal>, std::ostream&));
BOOST_OPENMETHOD_OVERRIDE( poke, void(virtual_ptr<Bulldog> dog, std::ostream& os)) { ... }
The difficulty with this is that the macros generate several constructs using the method name, formal parameter list and return type.
Steven suggested a trick to implement a similar syntax, using trailing return types:
BOOST_OPENMETHOD(poke, (virtual_ptr<Animal>, std::ostream&)->void);
BOOST_OPENMETHOD_OVERRIDE( poke, (virtual_ptr<Bulldog> dog, std::ostream& os)->void) { ... }
As I often use GMock I would prefer same pattern here, return type, name, args this is example from GMock docs(ignore override): MOCK_METHOD(void, Forward, (int distance), (override)); Benefit is that trailing return type is not commonly used in codebases where I worked, and downside is that name of method is not first... so when you have 20 methods one after another first column is return types, and name of fn is second column, so it is a bit less readable. I am not a fan of: poke, void(virtual_ptr<Animal>: since afaik there is no C++ syntax that nas name, return type, arguments ordering. But to be honest I would not consider either of the options you suggested bad so no strong pro or against votes from me. :)