Re: [Boost-Users] Re: Re: Re: boost::function syntax

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-27 16:30:17

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 04:51 pm, Edward Diener wrote:
> If so, it provides an alternative trackable model to the derivation one in
> the current Boost.Signals library but with its own downside. The major one
> would be that the object must be dynamically allocated. Whereas in the
> current implementation this is not necessary. The plus side is that it
> would no longer be necessary to derive from a particular base class in
> order to be trackable. So there are definite tradeoffs both ways. If the
> library were willing to live with and create multiple means that the object
> be trackable, which I see as perfectly viable and in the spririt of C++, I
> would say it should create your choice also.

I've had plans to support something like what Peter suggests for a while (he 
suggested it a while ago <g>), but unfortunately it's a little more 
complicated than just catching bad_weak_ptr because of the 
slot_call_iterator. You actually have to figure out what weak_ptrs are 
sitting around and check if they can be locked ahead of time.

        Doug