From: Frank Mori Hess (fmhess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-23 20:56:35
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:44, Daniel Frey wrote:
> Peter raised a valid concern about compatibility with TR1 and C++0x. I
> pointed out that C++0x is not yet standardized, so this is our chance to
> improve the interface. std::tr1::esft<T> could be derived from std::esft
> (note, no template). Likewise for boost::tr1::esft<T> and boost::esft.
> Of course the TR1 implementation needs an additional T* (in my optimized
> 1.35.0 esft version) or a vtable (in your trunk version), so only the
> non-TR1-version would benefit.
It isn't my decision, but FWIW I prefer the template-less/free function
esft interface too. It's slightly more elegant to have the template type
deduced by a free shared_from_this call, than to make the user specify it
explicitly as the template parameter to the esft class.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk