From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-05 17:20:48
Matt Calabrese wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>I fail to see the relevance of boost::function is this context. It's not
>>exactly exposing any virtual functions in its interface.
> The relevance is that it is an example of a type that has value semantics
> and that logically encapsulates different dynamic types that all share a
> common interface. This is the exact concept that you refer to as "extremely
I think it's ok to say boost::function is a *not* a very common type.
It's one of a kind.
In OO programming, it is common to deep-clone a little here and there.
It's not common to do it all the time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk