Re: [boost] More on is_stateless<>

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-23 08:54:16

On Sunday 22 September 2002 11:54 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> > I don't understand how this can work. The function object is still
>
> allowed
>
> > to detect its address by examining the 'this' pointer:
>
> <snip>
>
> Hum...
>
> having looked at the implementation in a debugger I see that you're just
> constructing the stateless function object in the invoker. Shouldn't there
> be some indication in the docs that you're going to do that? Isn't there a
> claim that you're storing the function<>'s constructor argument in the
> function somewhere?

Well, if the type were actually stateless, it wouldn't matter if we stored a 
copy or not. But the definition of stateless doesn't account for this type of 
location-dependence, so Function is wrong here. Maybe the change should go 
into 1.29.0...

        Doug