Re: [boost] New New Callbacks Uploaded

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-22 14:46:55

In message <20001122115414.413e08c0.gregod_at_[hidden]>, Douglas Gregor
<gregod_at_[hidden]> writes
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:04:04 +0000
>Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As another point, is there a reason that pointers are restricted to raw
>> pointers? This restriction is not necessary -- see http://www.cuj.com/ex
>> perts/1811/henney_x.html which allows other smart object pointers.
>
>I'll stick my neck out to say that most of us are under the assumption that 
>callbacks will be used with a more powerful library (e.g., Lambda) instead of 
>attempting to duplicate its functionality. 

This is really an issue with the way that Jesse's implementation handles
pointers and pointers to member functions, rather than how the
functional side of things is to be used with these classes in general.
Currently that callback class restricts pointers to objects to be raw
pointers, whereas it could work easily with smart pointers as well.

There is also the question as to whether the function pointer class
should be given a wrapped and bound member function pointer, or whether
it should wrap it itself. I have implementations of both, and am
undecided.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     fax:    [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________