7 Oct
2007
7 Oct
'07
6:55 p.m.
On 10/7/07, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
boost::overload<Signatures> f;
// assign functions in any order f.add_overload(foo4);
Given that the entire point is to hold overloads, isn't "add_overload" a bit redundant? Why not just "add"?
Yes I agree, also because 'overload' is already the name of the struct so perhaps add_function() would be better but also functors can be added so....perhaps just add() is the best, util now ;-) Marco