Re: [boost] boost::function feature request?

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-04 15:53:20

On Nov 4, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>> I ended up with 'f = always( whatever )',
>
> What an amazing coincidence. :-)
>
>> which grew on me to the point that I don't wish for the above anymore.
>
> Well, I still do. is_enabled( true ) is much better than is_enabled( 
> always(true) ). _I_ can handle either syntax, but other programmers 
> find the former much more accessible.
>
> The =0 collision didn't occur to me, mostly because I've never treated 
> boost::function as a function pointer. I know which feature I'd prefer 
> if given the choice.

As do I, but I'm sure we disagree :)

> I'm not sure what Doug had in mind when he said that it would be 
> unimplementable, as the scalar constructor and the scalar assignment 
> are not templates.

Oh, dear, I really should avoid the "u" word.

Just dropping operator=(const result_type&) and function(const 
result_type&) into function would work, but changes the meaning of some 
existing code:

        function<int()> f;
        f = 0;

I don't think we can do that.

        Doug