On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Falcou" <joel.falcou@lri.fr> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexception safetyguarantee
On 19/10/10 09:56, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
Even if there were sufficient demand to change boost::function, that's not how Boost works. Each Boost library has a maintainer and once the library is accepted, (s)he needs to be sold on the change.
There's also the issue that it seems a good idea to keep boost::function unchanged so it doesn't deviate from std::function.
can't we resort to an artifice like function2, much like signal and signal2 coexists ?
+1, but we need someone to do the work :(
What's the benefit of function2 vs. adding a nothrow_t constructor to function? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode