Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review ends 20th March.

23 Mar 2016

...
...
On 23/03/2016 13:33, paul Fultz wrote:
 This doesn't really matter. `reference_wrapper` has a call operator
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 8:10 PM, Gavin Lambert  wrote:
that is
...
only const. Having a non-const overload for `reference_wrapper` would imply
 that the function could change what `reference_wrapper` points to, but it
 can't. So there is no reason to have a non-const overload.
Well, I'm mostly using boost::reference_wrapper at the moment, which 
lacks a call operator, so boost::bind does have to explicitly unwrap it 
(though it does do this internally, so user code doesn't care).  But 
that's good to know; I hadn't noticed that the C++11 standard had 
introduced this.
...
Same applies to using `fit::indirect(&f)`.

...
So, you're saying that this is valid code (noting lack of const)?
Yes that code is valid.
...
struct F
{
     F() : value(0) {}
     void operator()(int a) { value += a; }
     int value;
} f;
fit::indirect(&f)(15);
fit::indirect(&f)(2);
assert(f.value == 17);
If so, then that satisfies my concern.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: 
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost