Re: 0x late-specified return type

From:

SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Wed, 13 May 2009 03:40:00 CST

Message-ID:

<381d3ecd-ef77-412e-b7c9-0d9232da091e@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>

On 13 Mai, 00:00, Mathias Gaunard <loufo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 mai, 17:41, SG <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:

The part about passing parameters to lambda function objects is
besides the point. In my examples I expect T and U to be declared as
types somewhere else.

And I don't.
Hence the polymorphic vs monomorphic lambdas.

Yeah, I got that. I simply chose not to talk about polymorphic lambdas
because they are not part the current draft and not any different from
their monomorphic counterpart with respect to inferred return types.
This thread is about inferred return types, right?

[...]

and the types mentioned in the
lambda parameter declaration list have to be already known.

No they don't, since I assumed polymorphic lambdas as a hypothetical
feature.

I wasn't talking about "polymorphic" lambdas. I was explaining
monomorphic lambdas -- the kind that *made* it into the standard. ;-)

Cheers!
SG

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]