From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-25 07:03:29
> That defeats the purpose of the new syntax :) We want:
> boost::function<int (int x, int y)> f;
> Approximating this with a typedef will make it work, but it won't be
> usable. Approximating this with a typedef in function_test would be very,
> very bad: it gives the impression that everything is fine on a compiler
> when in fact the compiler is very broken for typical uses of the library.
OK I accept that the syntax you propose is cleaner - but the lib isn't
broken with Borland's compiler - it just needs a workaround applying in use.
Seriously, almost no compilers support the syntax you are using, will anyone
actually use boost.function or boost.signals if it just looks as though it
is broken on all the major compilers? One other question: is the syntax you
are using actually legal - I refer to the placement of a named parameter
within a typename:
boost::function<int (int, double)> // no quibbles
boost::function<int (int a, double b)> // is this really legal?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk