Re: [Fwd: Re: [Boost-users] bind return value]

Darren Vincent Hart wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 08:08, Marc Strämke wrote:
> 
>>Peter Dimov's Solution was basicly what i was thinking of, he's a few 
>>years ahead of me in metaprogramming though *g*
>>I see one problem though , the first(simpler) solution makes no 
>>provisions for supporting signal arguments does it? As far as i 
>>understand the limitation of C++'s metaprogramming here we need one 
>>boost_return overload/specialisation for each number of arguments supported.
>>
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Libstk signals all accept bool(void) slots, so there
> are no arguments.  When we use bind to use a method that takes
> arguments, it (bind) returns a functor that returns the same thing as
> the method, but takes no arguments, so I don't think this is an issue. 
> I am implementing a test case atm (including argument passing to
> "bind'ed" slots).
That is absolutely right, but we do have signals that have arguments, i 
mean the signal, not the slot! For example pre_draw gets a rectangle, or 
on_event gets an event_ptr. It should be sufficient to provide a one 
argument form only though!

> 
> Darren
>