3) I'd like to see a general solution for this problem using real (late-bound) function objects as well, if you know what I mean. This would be a lot harder, though, so maybe it should be put on a wish-list. Have you given any thought to this approach?
return compare.less(p1.x, p2.x) .greater(p1.y, p2.y) .call(f, p1.z, p2.z);
now this would be:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x, std::less <double> ()) (p1.y, p2.y, std::greater <double> ()) (p1.z, p2.z, f);
The problem with that is that it requires you to name the type of the arguments (and they have to be the same).
but you have this problem always. and the set of member functions as you suggest should be very limited anyway. when i think about it, only less and greater out of the std-functors make sense at all. so these two are taken care of as seen below.
or nearly the same:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x) (p2.y, p1.y) (p1.z, p2.z, f);
jan
-- jan langer ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] "pi ist genau drei"
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
