Re: boost::function syntax

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?

Thanks,
Shyam

--- 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... - http://eldwood.com