Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review ends 20th March.
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-22 21:10:12

On 23/03/2016 13:33, paul Fultz wrote:
> This doesn't really matter. `reference_wrapper` has a call operator that is
> only const. Having a non-const overload for `reference_wrapper` would imply
> that the function could change what `reference_wrapper` points to, but it
> can't. So there is no reason to have a non-const overload.

Well, I'm mostly using boost::reference_wrapper at the moment, which
lacks a call operator, so boost::bind does have to explicitly unwrap it
(though it does do this internally, so user code doesn't care). But
that's good to know; I hadn't noticed that the C++11 standard had
introduced this.

> Same applies to using `fit::indirect(&f)`.

So, you're saying that this is valid code (noting lack of const)?

struct F
     F() : value(0) {}
     void operator()(int a) { value += a; }
     int value;
} f;

assert(f.value == 17);

If so, then that satisfies my concern.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at