On 3/20/07, Eric Niebler <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daniel Walker wrote:
Still, for compilers that Boost.Typeof doesn't support, it would be nice if result_of could handle Boost.Lambda at least. More recent libraries and future libraries could consider adopting a previously existing practice (result<F(Args) or sig<tuple<Args> >) that result_of can support without typeof.
IMO, you have this backwards. Rather than patch result_of to handle lambda, lambda function objects should be modified to follow the result_of convention. It's now standard, after all.
Good point. I considered doing that, but didn't want to intrude on any user code out there that follows the current Boost.Lamda convention. Of course, I don't mind submitting a patch to Boost.Lambda as you suggest if there's interest. That would help alleviate the problem of having multiple return type conventions among Boost libraries. I could also try to patch Fusion. Perhaps, my result_of patch could still be useful for providing backwards compatibility for current Boost.Lambda style user defined functors. Daniel