From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-14 18:00:09
> If we are going to generalize this there should be a single
> boost::function0<void> argument, and if you're going to go down this
> path we should /definitely/ generalize it. Replicating this design
> pattern in two separate libraries would be a big mistake.
I could not afford boost::function dependency in so low level component as
execution_monitor (or even unit_test_monitor). If we will be able to design
it as pluggable extension to Boost.Test I would of course prefer the way
you implemented it in Boost.Python with boost::function0<void> argument.
> optimization crop up). This is not an idiom that's been
> well-exercised in compiler vendors' test suites, it seems.
Still, what about conformance to standard?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk