On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon@woodhull.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
To be fair, function templates can be specialized without defining a main template, and in that case you get the same amount of coupling as when you use regular functions.
I do agree however that the call syntax should not rely on <>. One reason is that it turns off ADL. Another reason is that sometimes an implicit conversion to match an existing non-template overload is preferable to instantiating a template.
The function overload customization point in Conversion uses a dummy parameter and no <>. convert_to<> is a just a more pleasant wrapper over that. So I think these language features are still available.
What makes it more pleasant? Is it more convenient? In what use cases? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode