function review

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-14 06:13:56

The following comments are personal opinions and should not be confused
with my role as review manager.

I like function and I think it should be accepted into boost.

The following points are just a few that I don't think have been brought up
yet:

Docs:
In the section on member function pointers (both index.htm and faq.htm) it
may be worth pointing out that std::bind_1st(std::mem_fun_ref(_m_f)) can be
used for member functions taking one argument (see also
<boost/functional.hpp>).

Headers:
There seem to be a lot of headers under boost/, would it be an idea to move
everything except function.hpp to boost/function/  ?

Implementation:
Is there any reason why you have duplicated is_void in function_base.hpp
rather than use the type traits version?  If it's because of the size of
<boost/type_traits/arithmetic_traits.hpp>, then I'll split is_void off into
a separate sub-header (I should do this anyway, but you might persuade me
to get a move on :-)  )
I wonder whether the "detail" namespace should be replaced with
"function_detail" or "function::detail" whichever you prefer - I worry
about namespace clashes if everyone uses "detail".  Having said that if you
don't think that it's a problem then leave it for now.
Like almost everyone else I'm not keen on boost::nil, personally I would
just leave it out, but if you really want it, then renaming to something
else seems to be in order (to avoid the mac problem).

- John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/