Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping withnoexceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-30 21:09:34
"Kazutoshi Satoda" <k_satoda_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Domagoj Saric wrote:
>> this 'overhead' of a few static pointers is completely insignificant
>> compared to various related code bloat issues...
> That should be true. But unfortunately, the overhead of static pointers
> are actually significant while they are not const, at least for me.
In my implementation the vtables as well as the pointers inside them are
const (actually they are references on compilers which support references to
functions)...Actually my policy from the beginning was to make const just
about everything that can be made const... ;)
-- "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