Re: Boost.function enhanced (a little)
* Mathias Gaunard:
On 12 oct, 20:59, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
It is a demonstration that type erasure for a delegate does not require
dynamic allocation, which is contrary to your claim quoted above.
Except this isn't type erasure as defined in C++ literature.
By definition, type erasure requires dynamic memory allocation because
it needs to be able to contain objects of *arbitrary* types,
And the code I presented does that.
which
means of *arbitrary sizes*, that satisfy a given *structural
interface*, also known as a *concept*.
No, I'm sorry but that's not even wrong: you're talking about a
generalization
and the requirements of fully supporting that (irrelevant) generalization,
like
a car needs to have wings and a rocket engine in order to be a fully general
transportation vehicle -- think about it, it's idiocy.
The context of this discussion is delegate support.
I think with this and the previous posting you have amply demonstrated that
your
opposition to delegate support in boost::function was based on a number of
fundamental misconceptions and even errors of fundamental logic, and so your
point of view is not to be taken seriously by anyone (there might be good
arguments in that direction, but not the ones you have failed to present).
I'm willing to continue pointing out further errors and misconceptions on
your
part, even with full code examples demonstrating your misconceptions (like,
you
say A is impossible, and I show you that A is possible and trivial), as I
did.
But please do keep in mind that as far as this subthread's subject matter is
concerned, we're now finished: there was no substance to your comments.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]