Re: [boost] [function] Using boost::function when rtti isnot available

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] Using boost::function when rtti isnot available
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-27 03:49:27

"David Genest" <david.genest_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:E7F3301F6AF1F341AB107794F4F80A6F19746B05_at_MDC-MAIL-CMS01.ubisoft.org...
> Domagoj Saric Wrote:
>> it has various other space and time optimizations besides no-typeid
>> support as
>> well as cofigurability through policies (although it seemes to have
>> sparked
>> little interest)...
>
> I read most of the thread and I'm surprised to see that you are right
> regarding interest. I'm surely interested which means there must be
> others. I'm impressed by the depth of your analysis/optimisations.
> Will this effort be brought in a new version of boost soon ?

sorry...i cannot know that ;)
there seem to be several more 'higher-level' discussion threads active at the 
moment...perhaps 'resurrecting' the topic at a more peaceful time would be a 
good idea...

>> hope it helps...:
>
> It will!

glad to hear that ;)

>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/194514/focus=195351
>> ;)
>
> I didn't find any attachments in gmane, but found the vault version
> ( 
> http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=new_function_implementation_proposal.tgz&directory=Function%20Objects& ) 
> .
> Is this the latest version ?

pretty much...i paused the work on bf until there is atleast some discussion on 
the work so far (what's 'good' and what's 'bad') and any 'semi-official' hints 
that the changes/ideas might eventually be accepted...

>Can I just apply the new files over the current function directory?

yes...it should be a drop in replacement...

-- 
 "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most
important of all the lessons of history."
 Aldous Huxley