Lars,
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Lars Viklund
Please do not top post, the list guidelines encourage bottom posting.
Apologies; I was on my phone which makes editing difficult.
Your wrapper does not seem to follow the rule of three: If a class defines one of the following it should probably explicitly define all three: * destructor * copy constructor * assignment operator
Your wrapper type does not seem to have provided adequate implementations for the cctor and op=, or has not prevented the synthesised ones from existing.
I'll review the wrapper in light of your comments. Thanks!
Another alternative is that you can hold your state in the Task by reference or smart pointer, such that if it's copied, the guts still refer to the correct state.
Good suggestion, but that doesn't solve the situation where I wanted the actual object to be shared. While I understand the rationale now (thanks to your excellent explanation), I will also point out that I am not alone in my misunderstanding of the interface. I discussed the issue with a few colleagues and asked what they would expect to happen, and they all had similar expectations to mine (that the functor was not copied). The commonality of misunderstanding is what prompted my suggestion that the copying of the argument be more explicit. I truly appreciate the help and apologize for the top-posting. -- Chris Cleeland