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

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-19 18:20:40

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee

> 
> 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?

I have not followed all the change request to boost::function but it seems to me that not all are compatible with the current interface. So my opinion is that the people that are interested in the change make a conrete proposal in the form of a new library or a library extension and we will see if the proposal is accepted by the Boost community.

Change requests that break the interface should not be acceptable in principle.

Just my opinion,
Vicente