[C++-sig] [python] Function objects in place of member functions
lists_ravi at lavabit.com
Mon Oct 12 02:32:59 CEST 2009
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:
> In the process, I overhauled get_signature to use boost::function_types,
> and to be a metafunction, not a function:
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.
> boost::function<int(X*, int)> bf0(fobj);
Why do you need to use boost::function here? Shouldn't the type be deduced
> 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?
More information about the Cplusplus-sig