"Emil Dotchevski" <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote in message news:AANLkTi==wpp=53+4YEHUrfV+Wk_Z15D1GQzvgyhW87Rb@mail.gmail.com...
Even if there were sufficient demand to change boost::function, that's not how Boost works. Each Boost library has a maintainer and once the library is accepted, (s)he needs to be sold on the change.
I know that, and those that want the change then have no other 'democratic' option but to repeatedly ask for/propose changes (or whine, depending on the perspective)... However, it would polite of a library author(s) to at least respond in a sensible way to discussions about their own library, especially when they go on for years... If one is unable to write a post about one's own library every few months much less maintain it (especially if its a core library) transfer of ownership (even if temporary) becomes a viable option...
There's also the issue that it seems a good idea to keep boost::function unchanged so it doesn't deviate from std::function.
The measure of 'goodness' of that idea is a matter of a cost-benefit analysis as well as, obviously, a matter of taste as I have argued in another post...Where I've also noted that it can actually be both ways...just like Joel propsed... -- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman