Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 16:47:03

"Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:AANLkTi=Z=OtSBViFViTpkeZO4Un4yzvLuSuvXRysaBc-_at_mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Domagoj Saric <dsaritz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> "Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:AANLkTi=1J3+hD0Oh3Le+6-jfnwDLYpTn_A7a6x=oZFnz_at_mail.gmail.com...
>>
>>> ... at worst they'd be mad that you've used
>>> Boost (that's common in games, for example.)
>>
>> Shall we disregard all those cases (of Boost rejection) as irrational 
>> rants
>> (as admittedly they often are, be it of the 'corporate policy' type or of
>> the Linus Torvalds type) or shall it be admitted that after all, 
>> sometimes,
>> they actually are based on real objections (that Boost, or parts of it, 
>> made
>> some not-so-happy efficiency compromising choices)...?
>
> You can't talk about Boost efficiency in general.

I wasn't ("...or parts of it...")...

> Are we talking
> about the efficiency of Boost Function then? I'm sure if someone
> manages to speed it up, many people on this mailing list (not to
> mention the folks who are implementing std::function) would be very
> interested to see how it can be done.

I'm sorry but what else have we been talking about in all these countless 
boost::function discussions?
I have written pages and pages of not only what can be changed but of what I 
have changed...As mentioned in this old post 
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/01/160908.php I have managed to 
get a ~10% speedup with changes that are purely internal, that is they _do 
not_ change the interface or the semantics of boost::function...An 
additional ~10% was gained by turning on the nothrow policy (where a 
boost::function marks itself as nothrow)...this change obviously requires a 
break in the interface (with an additional template parameter).....

I've brought this up many times and it only received interest from Boost 
users, library author(s) did not seem to be even slightly, much less very, 
interested...
And I am/was not alone, there have been others proposing (and implementing) 
various changes...but boost::function remained 'rock solid'...

--
"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