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