Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 16:46:48

"Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]> wrote in message

> Even if there were sufficient demand to change boost::function, that's
> not how Boost works. Each Boost library has a maintainer and once the
> library is accepted, (s)he needs to be sold on the change.

I know that, and those that want the change then have no other 'democratic'
option but to repeatedly ask for/propose changes (or whine, depending on the
However, it would polite of a library author(s) to at least respond in a
sensible way to discussions about their own library, especially when they go
on for years...

If one is unable to write a post about one's own library every few months
much less maintain it (especially if its a core library) transfer of
ownership (even if temporary) becomes a viable option...

> There's also the issue that it seems a good idea to keep
> boost::function unchanged so it doesn't deviate from std::function.

The measure of 'goodness' of that idea is a matter of a cost-benefit
analysis as well as, obviously, a matter of taste as I have argued in
another post...Where I've also noted that it can actually be both
ways...just like Joel propsed...

"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