OONumerics User : |
From: Russell Smiley (smiley_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-13 15:35:51
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oon-list-bounces_at_[hidden] On Behalf Of Roman Krylov
> To: oon-list_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [oon-list] Default type declaration achievable?
>
>
> If you want to use 'same_type_as_f_return_type' you can use
>
> typedef double f_type
> f_type f(double);
> f_type p = f(...);
> and if you want to change f's type in future - you'll change
> only 1st line. Or was it the blame to language(meant C or C++
> ?) not having ability to
> express, for instance 'f::ret_type p = ...',
Now that's an interesting idea...
I guess you could achieve this by using a static member function of a
"function container" class:
class fcn_container
{
public:
typedef double ret_type;
typedef int arg1_type;
typedef char arg2_type;
static ret_type f (arg1_type, arg2_type);
};
You could then call the function with:
fcn_container::arg1_type arg1 = 3.14;
fcn_container::arg2_type arg2 = 'a';
fcn_container::ret_type p = fcn_container::f(arg1, arg2);
I guess this makes the class fcn_container into a kind of namespace, so
you could just as easily use namespaces to achieve the same result. Not
sure if there might be some advantage or disadvantage to using the
static member function approach over namespaces.
Hope this helps (it helped me, anyway).
Russell.