Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexception safetyguarantee
From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 18:06:03
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Falcou" <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexception safetyguarantee
>> On 19/10/10 09:56, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> There's also the issue that it seems a good idea to keep
>>> boost::function unchanged so it doesn't deviate from std::function.
>> can't we resort to an artifice like function2, much like signal and
>> signal2 coexists ?
> +1, but we need someone to do the work :(
What's the benefit of function2 vs. adding a nothrow_t constructor to function?
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk