AMDG dan marsden <danmarsden <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Another question about the design / docs for the switch library under review.
From what I understand switch takes a runtime integral value, uses a PP generated switch statement, and calls out using some sort of MPL integral constant to specify the switch case to be served. This is pretty cool, as we seem to be travelling back from runtime into compile time world.
The documentation is not specific about which specific type (e.g. mpl::int_<1> for case 1 matching in the underlying switch statement) is going to be used.
The type that is passed to f is whatever is in the list of cases.
It looks to me like it would be convenient to overload operator() for each case I want to service, but this will be awkward to do without knowing the exact type that will be incoming.
<snip>
If multiple cases are not grouped together, I don't see how it's an advantage to use my library vs. using a plain old hand-written switch. Would you mind elaborating? In Christ, Steven Watanabe