From: Ronald Garcia (rgarcia4_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-11 17:31:21
I believe that function should be accepted into Boost.
In the documentation, boost::function is referred to as a "class."
Perhaps this should be changed to "class template."
In the documentation table, for consistency, change
"f.set(function_object)" to "f.set(func_object)" or vice versa.
There is a reference to "compatible" function object (for conversions
and operator=). This isn't defined at all. Is a compatible function
object one with the same set of template parameters, or one whose
parameter types can be converted to the other. ie, will:
boost::function<long,long> f = boost::function<int,long>();
In the documentation for the policy class, a little more information
about function_base might be necessary. A description of the
available interface (or simply "function_base provides no useful
interface to pre_call or post_call and is simply an implementation
detail." if that is the case) would be helpful.
Where you wrote "intraprocedural", did you mean "interprocedural"?
Should there be a function10 (supporting 10 arguments and a return
The discussion of policies could use a link to the policies section of
the Generic Programming Techniques page.
The "struct int_div" example in the documentation appears to be
missing a close brace.
In function_base.hpp, the line with the comment "// end namespace
private" should probably be "// end namespace intimate".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk