On Sunday 11 October 2009 19:44:29 troy d. straszheim wrote: > > Why is the overloaded get_signature not picked up when it is declared > > after the inclusion of the headers? > > I'm not sure why it isn't picked up.
Does that mean that you can reproduce the problem I pointed out? > I've been working in this area, > replacing most of detail/caller.hpp and detail/invoke.hpp with > boost.fusion, seen here: > > http://gitorious.org/~straszheim/boost/straszheim/blobs/python/boost/python > /detail/caller.hpp > > In the process, I overhauled get_signature to use boost::function_types, > and to be a metafunction, not a function: > > http://gitorious.org/~straszheim/boost/straszheim/blobs/python/boost/python > /signature.hpp IMHO, this is the right way to do it. This avoids relying on the compiler to optimize out all the ugly tag-dispatching. Of course, Dave A & Ralf WGK did not have function types when they wrote this originally. [snip] > boost::function<int(X*, int)> bf0(fobj); Why do you need to use boost::function here? Shouldn't the type be deduced automatically? > I'm fairly new to the internals of boost.python, and only just now got > this working... Do you see problems with this, specifically the > conversion of get_signature from function to metafunction? I don't see any problems with the conversion of get_signature to a metafunction. Do compile times get any longer? Regards, Ravi _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
