on Thu Oct 11 2012, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
2012/10/10 Matt Calabrese <rivorus@gmail.com>
you are NOT requiring that the model in question has a signature that matches exactly, nor that the return type must be void. The match is loose, including convertibility of arguments and results, and if a return type is specified as void in a pseudo-signature, it will match fine with functions that do not return void (just don't try to use the return type as though it were something other than void when in a constrained context).
"The match is loose" -- I believe that this "loose match" may be a problem in itself. The pseudo-signatures look like any other signature so one might expect that they also work as any other signature. One would be surprised to learn they are only similar with other signatures on the surface, but differ in semantics due to this "loose match". In contrast, with usage patterns you are already alerted with the unusual syntax that the meaning of the declarations is unusual.
My comment may be very superficial though. I do not know pseudo-signatures in-depth. And I do not find pseudo-signatures nferior. I only argue with this "loose match" idea.
Yes, it's counterintuitive, and at first, everyone has a superficial understanding and argues with it. But it's actually what you want. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost