Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exception safetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 03:32:58
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Is *that* the core issue here? Because it seems like the issue has
>> been about various other things earlier in this conversation.
> The core issue, if I remember correctly, is that when a library uses
> boost::function internally without ever calling it while NULL and the user
> compiles with exceptions disabled, he needs to supply a definition of
> boost::throw_exception even though it will never be called.
IMO, if we try to look at this discussion in the context of all the other
boost::function related discussions and all the various alternative
implementations that circulate around the internet, the core issues jump
right out: it is always about inefficiency and/or lack of configurability...
Considering that those issues are consistently brought up every once in a
while, the question that logically follows is why do we still have the
boost::function implementation that we do? After all, a fraction of the
effort spend in these run-around-in-circles discussions would have been
enough to make relevant changes to boost::function...
-- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk