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.