From: Joseph Wu (josephclwu_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-26 22:27:03
Marco Costalba wrote:
> boost::function uses clear(), should I use the same API for consistency?
I like having clear() to mean clear all. And having empty() to mean all
overloads are empty. For signature-based clear() and empty(), one would use
get<signature>().empty() and get<signature>.clear().
But then, it is just me.
Also, I've skimmed thru the implementation. It looks like that each
signature is managed by an auto_ptr to a boost::function. How about
"small-overload optimization" in that the boost::function objects for the
first couple of signatures are stack-based (ideally based on the dynamic
order of callables being set, which is not necessarily the same as the
static order of signatures in the mpl sequence of signatures.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk