6 Jul
2006
6 Jul
'06
8:17 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> writes:
Only because it's more work to implement than it should be. I've had to do it several times. And, just to point at one familiar example, see boost::function.
I fail to see the relevance of boost::function is this context. It's not exactly exposing any virtual functions in its interface.
Its operator() might as well be a virtual function. The fact that it's implemented differently is merely a matter of special-purpose optimization that wouldn't be worth the trouble for the vast majority of similar classes. I know that won't make an impression on you, because you don't seem to think there are many similar classes... but there are.
Where? -Thorsten