On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
On 11 October 2010 00:01, Emil Dotchevski <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker@gmail.com> wrote:
Finally, there have been suggestions to alter boost::function's exception safety guarantee directly through either policies or constructor options.
We used to have an Allocator parameter to the boost::function template and it was removed (just in time for this change to also be reflected in C++0x) to reduce coupling.
So what exactly is the proposed behavior if the function object cannot fit in the small object optimization space of unsafe_function and the allocation fails?
As proposed, unsafe_function has the same semantics as boost::function with one (and only one) exception: the behavior of operator() is undefined when it has no target.
If that was the only motivation, you could just disable exception handling, and then define: namespace boost { void throw_exception( std::exception const & ) { assert(0); } } Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode