Re: [boost] Re: New New Callbacks Uploaded

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-02 09:02:03

In message <5Wln5EASGMK6EwHY_at_[hidden]>, Kevlin Henney
<kevlin_at_[hidden]> writes
>In message <20001201193344.3e206c74.gregod_at_[hidden]>, Douglas Gregor
><gregod_at_[hidden]> writes
>>My preference would be function_ptr if the callbacks have 
>>reference semantics, or function_obj if they have cloning semantics ("functor" 
>>would be my first choice for cloning semantics because it is concise, but it 
>>appears that it is no longer a usable term).
>
>How about function_adapter?

A possible naming convention has been staring me in the face for ages,
and I'm disappointed I didn't see it before: any_function. This follows
any and other any_* classes that I have to resolve the template/virtual
issue, eg any_iterator.

This seems to accurately describe its role, reads well in an arg list,
sidesteps the issue of callbacks/events/etc, and has clearer value-based
semantics.

Thoughts?

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

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