7 Aug
2011
7 Aug
'11
11:02 p.m.
On 08/07/2011 10:05 PM, Paul Coccoli wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Florian Paul Schmidt
<mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
True, except for the return type (as it's not used for function
dispatching in C++). I guess if one really wanted one could try to do
something crazy like that.. I don't know though, if the generity of the
approach really counterweights the potential hazards.. :D
Flo
On 08/07/2011 12:06 AM, Florian Paul Schmidt
wrote:
In C++, isn't the signature of the function encoded in the symbol
table via name mangling?
This is not meant to imply that I think this is good idea... Actually, type safety would go out of the window,
as the signature of a
function is not really apparent from the symbol table. So some caution would
have to be used when sending commands, making sure that the types of
arguments are right. Before creating the boost::bind functor the raw
function pointer from dlsym would have to be cast to the right type.. Maybe
boost::bind would be the wrong approach here alltogether.. Will need to
think about it a bit more..
OMG, could this be the one single place where polish
notation would have a
place? To clarify: Encode the signature of functions in the name of the
function and restrict yourself to several function signatures that cover the
kind of functions you want to expose. Then you could cast into the
appropriate type and again use boost::bind..
Ugly, am I on crack? Who knows? Going to party now. Laters,
Flo