From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-19 09:18:15
Douglas Gregor <dgregor <at> osl.iu.edu> writes:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
> > Irrespective of any fixes applied to boost.Function, this has been fixed in
> > the trunk --- boost.thread no longer depends on boost.function.
> It was fixed on the trunk for Boost.Function long ago. It's interesting
> that the thread library no longer depends on 'function' (at least, for
> launching threads); I see how the change was done (using virtual
> functions, which was once the implementation trick used in Function),
> but I'm curious as to why? Function has some storage optimizations that
> will tend to make it more efficient that the basic virtual
> function/templated derived class idiom.
I wanted the interface to match that being proposed for C++0x, which has the
constructor being a template.
I was considering using boost::function in the implementation, but I never got
round to it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk