Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping and exception safety recap
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 03:34:51

"Nevin Liber" <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On 12 October 2010 13:28, Emil Dotchevski <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It would have been nicer if op() didn't throw to begin with but
>> because that's how it has been, this should remain the default
>> behavior.
> More than that, it is the behavior that is going into C++0x.

Why? To both of those arguments, why?
Should we have stuck with all the tried and tested C-style 'beauty' that we
now consider ugly and obsolete just because 'that's how it was done 'back in
the day'?

While C++ is a great language, its standard library is not (a fact nicely
demonstrated at$uppweb$vsstd$en-us.html$uppweb$vsd$en-us.html) so why should we
worship it like it is?
As if the epic failure of the standard library called iostreams somehow just
created a precedent that says that its ok to put inefficient-by-design code
into the standard library, and if you manage to get it in it will stay there

If we already know that boost::function has (relatively) inefficient
invocation and copying, is not configurable and can cause unnecessary bloat
why not fix it now even if that makes it no longer a 'perfect copy' of
std::function...? After all:
- people come/came to use Boost exactly because the standard library did not
satisfy them
- (for example) boost::mem_fn is not a 'perfect copy' of std::mem_fn
- the 'proper' boost::function can always be renamed to something else
(boost::functional/functionoid or something) and boost::function can be a
wrapper around the 'proper' implementation that mimics std::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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at