On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:50 AM, John Bytheway <jbytheway+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/11 22:29, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
From: John Bytheway <jbytheway+boost@gmail.com> 2. Might anyone care so much about performance that they absolutely must have the code inlined? The answer is probably "yes" (or at least there will be people who *think* they care, which is also a problem). For these people you could, if you choose, provide an alternate implementation which doesn't indirect through local::function<>, and thus will only work in C++0x (or C++03 with non-standard extensions).
Without inheriting from local::function_base<> and then using local::function_ref<> the local struct cannot be passed as a template parameter in C++. Is this different for C++0x (C++03)?
Yes, in C++0x local structs can be passed as template parameters. Obviously, in C++0x there are lambdas too, so you might think your library is useless, but I'd expect most compilers to support passing local structs as template parameters before they support lambdas, so there is some advantage in having this intermediate implementation. Also, your macros would allow writing code that worked in C++0x and C++03, with the virtual function business in only those compilers/modes where it is necessary.
Hello all, Is there a Boost.Config macro that indicates if the compiler allows local classes to be passed as template parameters? Thank you. -- Lorenzo