nickm at sitius.com
Sat Jul 23 04:37:30 CEST 2005
"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" wrote:
> --- Nikolay Mladenov <nickm at sitius.com> wrote:
> > Don't you think relying on the order of overloads is a problem by
> > itself?
> Well, yes, but that's the way Boost.Python works at the moment, and I had a few
> situations where I had to get the order right to achieve what I wanted.
> > I do the sorting so I can write:
> > func( arg1 [, arg2 [, arg3[ ...]]]])
> > instead of n lines with one arg difference.
> > And I do not reorder the overloads.
> That's very nice, but couldn't you also do this without sorting? In most cases
> you'd probably get the same result anyway, but you wouldn't undo the work
> someone may have done in ordering the overloads.
Yes, you are probably right. I will see if I can remove the sorting. I
have to check how
the overload generators order their overloads(they should be with
increasing number of args).
But in all cases the sorting is not really mandatory, although it is
I have also used the ordering to achieve better performance, but I never
had a case where
the ordering affects the logical behavior.
More information about the Cplusplus-sig