At Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:06:00 -0700, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Domagoj Saric <dsaritz@gmail.com> wrote:
"Emil Dotchevski" <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote in message news:AANLkTi=1J3+hD0Oh3Le+6-jfnwDLYpTn_A7a6x=oZFnz@mail.gmail.com...
... at worst they'd be mad that you've used Boost (that's common in games, for example.)
Shall we disregard all those cases (of Boost rejection) as irrational rants (as admittedly they often are, be it of the 'corporate policy' type or of the Linus Torvalds type) or shall it be admitted that after all, sometimes, they actually are based on real objections (that Boost, or parts of it, made some not-so-happy efficiency compromising choices)...?
You can't talk about Boost efficiency in general. As difficult as it is to pull apart, Boost contains individual components. Are we talking about the efficiency of Boost Function then? I'm sure if someone manages to speed it up, many people on this mailing list (not to mention the folks who are implementing std::function) would be very interested to see how it can be done.
I think we already know one way: we can easily get rid of the separate empty() check by making sure empty boost::functions all invoke a function that throws bad_function_call. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com