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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk