Edward Diener wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
I think Gennadiy wants the dll code to call a user-defined function, and the problem is that if you declare the function and then leave it undefined the linker complains, even though this works fine with static linking, since the user supplies the definition and the linker sees everything at once.
OK, but would it not be better just to use boost::function<> to allow the user to pass in a user-defined function at run-time from wherever he chooses ? This is much more flexible than attempting to declare a user-defined function in a Dll which the end-user is supposed to define and depend on compile/link to resolve it..
This is really a question for Gennadiy, but I believe the answer is that he wants the use of the library as a dll to be as close as possible to the current use as a static library. Jonathan