Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: shyamemani (shyamemani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-26 12:57:51

Thanks Douglar and Rainer for your response....I tried tracing the
production filled my trashcan with parse trees sketches but had to
give up.

   I was reading the Herb Sutter's article Generalizing Observer in
CUJ where he uses this functionlity to implement a generic call
back. But I have some issues:
    By using this library we can eliminate the function name
dependency introduced by using a call back interface and can call
any function which matches the signature. But wouldn't this cause a
maintainance problem? Using the call back interface defines the
name of the function, it is easy to find the execution block for an
event. Using this library it becomes a more of a coding convention
than a compile time check.
    It may have removed the cost of virtual function call but I
think the performance would be offset by the extra call to operator
(). So though it is a very good feature of language, does it not
open doors for more cost?


--- In Boost-Users_at_[hidden], "Rainer Deyke" <yg-boost-
users_at_m...> wrote:
> shyamemani wrote:
> > None of the 'declaration' rules also seem to parse the
tokens 'float
> > (int,int) (I know I am missing something here).
> 'float (int, int)' is a type. In particular, it is type of the
function 'f'
> if 'f' is declared like this:
> float f(int, int);
> --
> Rainer Deyke - rainerd_at_e... -

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at