Re: [boost] [announce] Multi signature boost::function v1.0

From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-14 04:31:01

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> AMDG
>
>
>  Daniel Walker wrote:
>  > I think that binding multiple signatures
>  > to a single function object by default, without the user explicitly
>  > requesting it, may not be a good thing. My initial preference is to
>  > allow ref() for these situations, as Marco has suggested, but I'll
>  > reserve judgement until I can better see where y'all are going with
>  > it.
>  >
>
>  I suspect that there are really two tools here.  One which allows
>  separate function objects to be bound to each signature, more like
>  a fusion sequence or something.  The other binds all overloads to
>  a single object.  Neither one is easily implementable in terms of the other.
>  If all the signatures are bound at once, then it is difficult to later
>  change
>  just one.  If the functions are bound separately, then there is a
>  significant
>  size overhead compared to using a single object.
>

Great point Steven.

Yes, my proposal would not let one rebind signatures separately (not easily
at least). If this is an useful thing (really, I do not know), then
please Marco, disregard most of my comments,
probably I'm really looking for something else.

-- 
gpd