Doug Gregor wrote:
On Nov 4, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
The =0 collision didn't occur to me, mostly because I've never treated boost::function as a function pointer. I know which feature I'd prefer if given the choice.
As do I, but I'm sure we disagree :)
I don't really understand why it's so important for function<> to be a drop-in replacement for function pointers. I have never needed to migrate code from function pointers to function<> (but I did migrate code back.)
Just dropping operator=(const result_type&) and function(const result_type&) into function would work, but changes the meaning of some existing code:
function<int()> f; f = 0;
I don't think we can do that.
We can't. :-( Lack of nullptr strikes again. (Reminds me of the "you probably can, but you may not" joke.)