----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My current understanding (which, admittedly, is not backed up by a
> real-world experience) is that if you care about higher-orderness of your
> generic algorithms, a preferred implementation construct for those
> algorithms is not a function template, but a static _function object_ (a
> technique used in FC++):
>
> struct my_function_
> {
> template< typename U >
> void operator()(std::string const& text, U)
> {
> // ...
> }
>
> } my_function; // here!
>
>
> For ordinary uses, the above will act just like a plain function template
> (minus ADL/explicit template arguments specification):
>
> my_function("text", int());
>
> and it will also allow one to do something like this:
>
> std::string text("text");
> mpl::for_each< my_types >(boost::bind<void>(my_function, text, _1));
Here's the Phoenix version:
struct my_function_
{
template <typename Arg1T, typename Arg2T>
struct result { typedef void type; };
template< typename U >
void operator()(std::string const& text, U)
{
// ...
}
};
function<my_function_> my_function; // here!
Then:
mpl::for_each< my_types >(my_function(text, _1));
Regards,
Joel de Guzman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
