Re: Re: [C++-sig] [Implementation] Calling wrapped functions, converters, policies

At 14:43 2003-09-22, David Abrahams wrote:
>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > At 18:40 2003-09-21, David Abrahams wrote:
> >>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
> >> > This is something I'd like to avoid since it complicates the concept
> >> > for policies a lot.
> >>
> >>Just call your thing something else.  ArgumentPolicies?  I don't care.
> >>There's no reason inheritance has to be used for composition.  I don't
> >>even like it all that much, but it has distinct advantages in terms of
> >>the EBO.
> >
> > I don't get this. What is "my thing"?
>
>Whatever it is you're calling a "CallPolicy" for which the phrase
>"N'th element of the call policy tuple" makes sense.
>
>I'm trying to design the single interface needed by function
>invocation.  That's what I call "CallPolicy". If you want to implement
>the interface by sticking a tuple inside the CallPolicies class, or by
>inheritance, it doesn't matter to me.
>
> > And why should I call it something else?
>
>Because it's different from what Boost.Python called "CallPolicies"
>first.  It's causing confusion.  I don't care really how we do the
>naming, so I'll rename my CallPolicies "tartempion" if you really want
>to keep the meaning you're using.  Just let me know so we can move on
>with the discussion ;->

No it's fine, we'll go with the single object interface you are using.
We'll leave the actual composition for later. :)

---
Daniel Wallin




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf