From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-03 22:59:19
On Thursday 03 May 2001 07:52 pm, you wrote:
> >Requiring operator== of all function objects used with boost::function
> > would be way too strict, I think. We have to be very careful when adding
> > requirements for functors in boost::function because they are
> > requirements even if not used.
> Well you can make it work when the boost::function is pointing to a
> free function, a member function pointer, or a functor that supports
> operator==. If you got a compile time error when you tried to compare
> boost::function's when this didn't hold that would be fine with me.
But making it work at all requires _every_ functor to implement operator==,
which is too strong a requirement (especially considering that the standard
library function objects don't have operator==). See my response to Beman
regarding the impossibility of passing compile-time information through a
type-erasing barrier (i.e., virtual functions or taking the address of
functions). I'd love for someone to find a hole in the argument and supply an
implementation that can do it ;).
> >I'd argue that you should have one Timer object per callback, and then use
> > a static class member to keep track of all of the existing Timer objects
> > to call them; no equality test required.
> I can see this working, but it would be a bit more complex
> (aggravated a bit because I'm using a COM like object model). However
> the fact remains that comparing boost::function's is useful and is
> exactly the sort of thing you would do with an ordinary function
> pointer. This seems like a strong argument for making it part of the
Perhaps a separate concept is required that would include operator==. Maybe
this is the fundamental difference between boost::function and a
> >Why not just:
> >// About
> >handle->RegisterCommand(kAboutCmd, bind(this, &CApp::DoAbout),
> >// Delete Formula
> > bind(this, &CApp::DoDeleteFormula),
> > bind(this, &CAppMenuHandler::DoEnableDeleteFormula));
> >// Delete palette
> > bind(this, &CApp::DoDeletePalette),
> > bind(this, &CApp::DoEnableDeletePalette));
> >Implicit conversion from any function object/function pointer to a
> >boost::function is supported to make all of this easier.
> Hmm, I think I could live with that. It's important to make this as
> easy to use and as clean as possible though because it'll be used a
> lot. I looked at the bind.hpp that Peter pointed me to and it had a
> different (and to my eyes uglier) API.
> -- Jesse
I believe Peter's bind() is a lot more general than what I was considering,
In any case, I don't think that adding support for member functions directly
into to boost::function is the best choice - it seems wrong to add
functionality that we know will be bested by the binders/lambda library,
because then boost::function ends up carrying dead weight. I'd be happy to
supply a function (probably not named bind) that builds the simple function
object with a simpler interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk