"Doug Gregor" <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> wrote
In Boost CVS there is an implementation of result_of, which would be used like this:
result_of<Op(A, B)>::type
I have seen this, but BTW I cant find the utilities/detail/result_of_iterate.hpp header in the boost CVS Of course there is no problem to do this and am all in favour of result_of and binary_operation is designed to work with it 'out of the box' result_of<binary_operation<A,Op,B> >::type; This is a lot easier and less work to implement than the alternatives result_of<plus(A,B) >::type // requires impl result_of<minus(A,B) >::type // etc result_of<less(A,B) >::type etc...ad infinitum outlined in the proposal, which as I understand it requires a templated nested class for each currently result_of is a a general purpose tool. My point is that when dealing with 'operators' as opposed to functions in general it is much more convenient to have one one class representing the operation than a plethora of result_of_xxx classes. Take a look in Lambda, Ublas etc etc... currently they all do their own thing on operators One common interface class (ie binary_operation) for operators would sure help when designing matrix operators etc. To do that you need a template parameter capable of representing the generic operation. regards Andy Little