Jon Stewart on 30 Jul 2003 00:12:38 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [ALACPP] boost::function shortcoming |
> > Fortunately, in this case we were able to use a raw function pointer, but > > it begs the question -- I could see not comparing two boost::bound > > function objects as the member instances might be different, but even then > > I'd like to do some kind of type checking. > > Given that operator== is deliberately left undefined, and the way they > are doing their abstraction, I can't see a way to do what you want. Yeah. There's no good way with operator== (there are always bad ways...). Frankly, Chris' suggestion to test the default bindings by invoking operator() is the right way to go. It's the superior test because it tests operator() -- what you care about -- and not operator==. Also, completely black box. Jon -- Jon Stewart stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ alacpp mailing list alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp