Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee

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 
news:AANLkTi==wpp=53+4YEHUrfV+Wk_Z15D1GQzvgyhW87Rb_at_mail.gmail.com...

> 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 
perspective)...
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