On 10/9/07, Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?
Does is "register" a reserved keyword?
Oh, yeah. Stupid me. .register_() or .map() would say it better than .assign() or .add(). Let me make a case against 'add()'. overload<...> functions; functions.add(&foo1); functions.add(&foo2); That would imply that 'functions' would contain both foo1 and foo2 -- but if foo1 and foo2 have the same signature, then functions would not contain both. 'add' does not convey the correct idiom, rather it misleads the reader. OTOH, register_() or map() would say that you're registering a function or mapping a function to an appropriate signature or signatures in the overloaded function wrapper: overload<...> functions; functions.map(&foo1); functions.map(&foo2); ... functions.register_(&foo1); functions.register_(&foo2); "register_" has many more letters than "map" though they both (at least I think) convey the intentions better than add() or assign(). Then that way we can also do this: functions << map(&foo1) << map(&foo2) ; functions << register_(&foo1) << register_(&foo2); HTH -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc. [http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/] [mikhailberis@gmail.com] [+63 928 7291459] [+1 408 4049523]