In the simplest cases I just write the class like:

class Legendre
{
...
public:
  template<class F>
  static double computeIntegral( const F& f );

However in more complext examples, I have to work with classes with
non static memeber fucntions.
For example becouse I need to store data previously calculated about
the function for efficecny reasons.
I would like to "fix" the F at the moment of the construction of the
class and then invoke member functions of the class to perform
operations.

That is I would like to being able to do something like:

template<class F>
class FunctionAnalysis
{
private:

  F& function;

public:
  FunctionAnalysis( const F& f );

  double operation1();
  double operation2();

FunctionAnalysis driftAnalysis(boost::bind( &Sde::drift, &sde, _1 ));
double x = driftAnalysis.operation1();
double y = driftAnalysis.operation2();

There are two problems:
1) I class template arguments can never be deduced
2) driftAnalysis is not of type FunctionAnalysis

I can solve the fist problem using the same approach of make_pair, but
I dont't see any way to solve th second problem.

The objective is to avoid having to specify the template parameter of
the class (and using boos::bind you can easily see why :D ).

Do you have any suggestion?

Thank you!

template<typename T>
FunctionAnalysis<T> make_analysis(const T& func)
{
  return FunctionAnalysis<T>(func);

typedef boost::bind( &Sde::drift, &sde, _1 )::type;
FunctionAnalysis<T> driftAnalysis(boost::bind( &Sde::drift, &sde,
_1 ));

But this is no fun.

You should really not pass boost::bind types into template parameters
like this. Here is what I would propose.

Alternate Solution

class FunctionAnalysis
{
private:
  boost::function<double(double)> function;

public:
  FunctionAnalysis(boost::function<double(double)> f );
  double operation1();
  double operation2();

FunctionAnalysis driftAnalysis(boost::bind( &Sde::drift, &sde, _1 ));
double x = driftAnalysis.operation1();
double y = driftAnalysis.operation2();

On Jun 4, 11:10 am, StephQ <askmeo@mailinator.com> wrote: