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.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk