Re: [boost] about function.hpp

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-02 08:05:47

At 01:20 PM 5/1/01 -0400, Doug Gregor wrote:
 >>
 >> I think this is the least bad option. Most operator()'s are const, and 
in
 >> the case where the function object has _only_ a non-const operator(), a
 >> dummy const version (that throws an exception) will have to be added by 

 >the
 >> user.
 >
 >It strikes me as dangerous that we put off what is usually a compile-time 

 >check for const-correctness until run-time. However, I see no other way 
to
 >get both const and non-const versions working properly: using
 >either virtual
 >functions or type erasure, both const and non-const must be instantiated, 
so
 >
 >even if const is invalid for a specific function object something must
 >happen
 >- but it has to be at run-time. Perhaps that is just the price of
 >flexibility.

What about declaring but not defining, to turn it into a link-time error?

--Beman