5 Jul
2006
5 Jul
'06
9:20 p.m.
Matt Calabrese wrote:
On 7/4/06, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> wrote:
I fail to see the relevance of boost::function is this context. It's not exactly exposing any virtual functions in its interface.
The relevance is that it is an example of a type that has value semantics and that logically encapsulates different dynamic types that all share a common interface. This is the exact concept that you refer to as "extremely rare"
I think it's ok to say boost::function is a *not* a very common type. It's one of a kind. In OO programming, it is common to deep-clone a little here and there. It's not common to do it all the time. -Thorsten