Re: [boost] Interest in a clone_ptr class?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-06 00:46:54

Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Only because it's more work to implement than it should be.  I've had
>> to do it several times.  And, just to point at one familiar example,
>> see boost::function.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of boost::function is this context. It's not 
> exactly exposing any virtual functions in its interface.

Its operator() might as well be a virtual function.  The fact that
it's implemented differently is merely a matter of special-purpose
optimization that wouldn't be worth the trouble for the vast majority
of similar classes.  I know that won't make an impression on you,
because you don't seem to think there are many similar classes... but
there are.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com