From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-02 14:02:16
"Doug Gregor" <dgregor_at_[hidden]> wrote
> boost::function doesn't use virtual functions, but the effect is the
> same. boost::function adds one additional indirect call through a
> function pointer.
Sorry for the inaccurate response.
Out of curiousity, is this technique described anywhere (other than the
code)? It's hard to imagine the way to erase the type of a functor without
some kind of a polymorphic adaptor...
Does this technique have an advantage over the one with a virtual function
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk