Re: [boost] Interest in a clone_ptr class?

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,
>>>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.

Where?

-Thorsten