From: Marco Costalba (mcostalba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-27 05:16:22
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Joseph Wu <josephclwu_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
I'm a little bit not sure about this but anyway I have applied your
proposed changes the same as an added bonus to have reviewed my code
> Also, I've skimmed thru the implementation. It looks like that each
> signature is managed by an auto_ptr to a boost::function.
Yes!! I completely missed this!
Thanks a lot for this important suggestion. What happened is that
auto_ptr was necessary in some previous code of mine that used an home
grown function instead of boost::function.
Now a pointer is no more necessary and we can simply store
boost::function object as class member data.
I have upload in Vault the new much better (but even smaller) version
that I start to consider stable so I have called msf_27_4_2008.zip