Re: [Boost-users] Delegating to boost::function with arbitrary signature

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Delegating to boost::function with arbitrary signature
From: Michael Powell (mwpowellhtx_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-14 10:30:48

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Bjorn Reese <breese_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 12/14/2013 03:49 PM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to create something like a `boost::function`, but with an
>> extra 'smart handle' tucked inside, which controls the lifetime of a
>> resource the functions needs to execute correctly.
>
>
> The two aspects (resource life-time and generic signatures) should
> probably be handled separately.
>
> Regarding resource life-time, a common pattern is to bind to a member
> function on an object obtained via shared_from_this(). Here is an
> example from Boost.Asio:

I tend to agree with this application of the pattern:
dependency-injection and/or inversion-of-control, or in this case,
method-injection.

Trust me, from industry best practice, as well as experience, you'll
be glad you did, because you can keep the concerns a) loosely coupled,
and b) more concise, single-responsibility, closer to the problem they
are actually trying to solve.

>   http://www.boost.org/doc/html/boost_asio/tutorial/tutdaytime3.html
>
> Regarding generic signatures I am less certain, but maybe you could look
> into Boost.TypeErasure. Especially its type-safe printf example (or the
> subsequent example with multiple signatures)
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/html/boost_typeerasure/examples.html#boost_typeerasure.examples.printf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users