Re: Re: Re: Re: boost::function syntax

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 17:15:32

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> 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.

I didn't mean to say that it should be done, no matter how difficult it
might be, only that if it were easily doable it might be a good addition to
Boost.Signals as an alternative way of tracking objects.