On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Joseph Wu <josephclwu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Marco Costalba wrote:
boost::function uses clear(), should I use the same API for consistency?
I like having clear() to mean clear all. And having empty() to mean all overloads are empty. For signature-based clear() and empty(), one would use get<signature>().empty() and get<signature>.clear().
But then, it is just me.
I'm a little bit not sure about this but anyway I have applied your proposed changes the same as an added bonus to have reviewed my code ;-)
Also, I've skimmed thru the implementation. It looks like that each signature is managed by an auto_ptr to a boost::function.
Yes!! I completely missed this! Thanks a lot for this important suggestion. What happened is that auto_ptr was necessary in some previous code of mine that used an home grown function instead of boost::function. Now a pointer is no more necessary and we can simply store boost::function object as class member data. I have upload in Vault the new much better (but even smaller) version that I start to consider stable so I have called msf_27_4_2008.zip Thanks Marco