Re: [boost] active objects implementation request for comments

From: Jason Turner (lefticus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-06 19:55:11

On 3/6/07, Steven Watanabe <steven_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> AMDG
>
> Jason Turner <lefticus <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree, in principal, and it was my original intention. However, a
> > design goal was to make sure that any existing class could work with
> > active_object and your above example does not allow for a specific
> > constructor to be called. I guess, however, now that I think about it,
> > if the user needs to call the not-default constructor he can store a
> > pointer.
>
> You can either have N template constructors or use
> in_place_factory
>
> > <snip>
> > I also considered something along the lines of:
> >
> > ao->(&TestClass::getInt);
> >
> > What is your thought on that?
> >
>
> Illegal in C++.
>

Learn something new every day, I thought the -> operator could take parameters.

> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
http://emptycrate.com Games, Programming, Travel & other stuff