Douglas Gregor wrote:
> > In other words, can we allow a zero-arity 'function<...>'
> > to treat ordinary values as first-class function objects?
>
> Do we want to? I think not, because boost::function will lose
> its ability to safely replace function pointers.
That's a valid concern, but on the other hand, as a user that doesn't have
any plain function pointers to replace ;), I might be willing to pay that
price for the benefits of the proposed semantics nevertheless - that is, if
'boost::function<>' itself is not planned to support '= 0' syntax. Judging
from the other thread, it is ;), so consider my suggestion withdrawn.
>
> #include your friendly local lambda header and you can do this:
>
> boost::function<int ()> f1 = constant(-1);
Yes, I realize that, but I wanted a cleaner syntax for this.
> Aside from that, I'm not sure it's implementable. We would
> need a way to tell if an arbitrary class type is a function
> object or not. If we can do this, we will have solved the
> is_callable problem and Boost.Function will become very
> useful indeed :)
I would say that this one ought to work:
#include "boost/static_assert.hpp"
typedef char (&no_tag)[1];
typedef char (&yes_tag)[2];
template < long > struct sink {};
template< typename T > no_tag is_callable_helper(...);
template< typename T > yes_tag is_callable_helper(
sink< sizeof(&T::operator()) >*
);
template< typename T >
struct is_callable
{
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool
, value = sizeof(is_callable_helper<T>(0))
== sizeof(yes_tag)
);
};
struct her {};
struct my { int operator()(); };
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(!is_callable<int>::value);
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(!is_callable<her>::value);
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(is_callable<my>::value);
But of course none of the compilers are particularly happy about it. How
about adding 'is_callable<>' to the type_traits proposal and requesting a
compiler support for it?
Aleksey
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
