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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-05 19:59:35

Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> 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 don't really understand why it's so important for function<> to be a 
drop-in replacement for function pointers. I have never needed to migrate 
code from function pointers to function<> (but I did migrate code back.)

> 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.

We can't. :-( Lack of nullptr strikes again.

(Reminds me of the "you probably can, but you may not" joke.)