Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 21:20:56

>On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:33:50 -0800
>Jesse Jones <jejones_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >I think if the callbacks are to be purified to only deal with functors,
>> >a construct taking an object and a method would be a mistake. Instead, I
>> >think a make_callback function would be best.
>> Why is a make_callback function better than a template ctor?
>We settle on the most generic form of a callback (a bridge to any
>functor), but
>add a templated constructor for one specific implementation? This strikes me
>as contradictory. A make_callback free function is at least separate from the
>callback class, and more free to rely on other libraries (e.g., lambda).

We provide a callback implementation that works for functor like objects
(which may be free functions), but provide a template ctor for methods to
make life simpler for clients and to give us the freedom to change or tweak
the details of binding the object and the method to a functor.

>Now that I think about it, I don't think either solution is necessary. If
>binding libraries are the intention, we might as well just let users use those
>functions to create appropriate functors for member and free functions.

Maybe, but we'll need to make sure that there is a good solution for the
weaker compilers.

  -- Jesse

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at