From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-07 18:30:05
On Monday 07 May 2001 09:30 am, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 1:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [boost] about function.hpp
> > I'm almost wondering if there really is a fundamental difference between
> > two domains or if the lack of tools to enable the use of the "functor"
> > in C++ is the cause of the difference. If the binder and lambda libraries
> > were generally available and understood, would we be so reliant on the
> > standard callback types, to functions and member functions? I'll admit a
> > large degree of bias here because I tend to use the "functor" domain
> > quite often in my own code.
> Even if the library only supported pointers to free functions and bound
> pointers to member functions, it would be possible to use functors by
> passing a bound 'operator ()'. Of course this makes ownership issues a
> There is the possibility of making all 'boost::function's that contain
> functors compare as unequal. There may also be the possibility of an
> alternate 'boost::function' constructor which enables 'operator ==' for
> functors (and requires that functors provide 'operator ==').
Yes, or even an external trait class that states whether or not a function
object is equality comparable. This would shift the burden to those using
operator== to specify that they indeed are using it. Still, even this is
unfortunate: if the user forgets to specialize the trait class, the function
objects will (silently!) fail to ever be compared.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk