From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-06 16:17:22
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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,
>>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk