On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Florian Paul Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/07/2011 12:06 AM, Florian Paul Schmidt wrote: >> Actually, type safety would go out of the window, as the signature of a >> function is not really apparent from the symbol table. So some caution would >> have to be used when sending commands, making sure that the types of >> arguments are right. Before creating the boost::bind functor the raw >> function pointer from dlsym would have to be cast to the right type.. Maybe >> boost::bind would be the wrong approach here alltogether.. Will need to >> think about it a bit more.. > > OMG, could this be the one single place where polish notation would have a > place? To clarify: Encode the signature of functions in the name of the > function and restrict yourself to several function signatures that cover the > kind of functions you want to expose. Then you could cast into the > appropriate type and again use boost::bind.. > > Ugly, am I on crack? Who knows? Going to party now. Laters, > > Flo
In C++, isn't the signature of the function encoded in the symbol table via name mangling? This is not meant to imply that I think this is good idea... _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
