On 7/4/06, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Your philosophy seems to be the same as the one you used to forbid copying of ptr_containers: if you think the user _might_ be unhappy with the cost, don't provide the capability through the usual interface. This approach has no precedent in Boost or the STL.
I completely agree here and has been one of my biggest gripes with the ptr_containers. 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" and is the same logical functionality provided by clone_ptr but through types related by inheritance (which is even just a subset of its uses). -- -Matt Calabrese