On Dec 5, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
Good to bring this up. Note that we've discussed this before (and I posted sample code).
I haven't seen your code yet, but you mention functors must derive from some base class. That's not desirable - and I doubt it's required.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/ listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi, Thanks for your answer... To make that point clear, it is only required for static type checking of arguments and return types without having to use more than two template parameters. If you want to say it is not desirable for performance, I think deriving from std::unary_function costs nothing (since unary_function's only declare typedef's for return and argument types, there is not impact on calling the functor). The problem is that somehow I want the user to be explicit about those types. I am of course open to any propositions to avoid deriving from std::unary_function that does not require a large template argument list. All the best, Franck