From: Franck Stauffer (franck_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-05 10:53:30
On Dec 5, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Good to bring this up. Note that we've discussed this before (and
> I posted
> sample code).
>
> I haven't seen your code yet, but you mention functors must derive
> from some
> base class. That's not desirable - and I doubt it's required.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/
> listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi,
Thanks for your answer...
To make that point clear, it is only required for static type
checking of arguments and return types without having to use more
than two template parameters. If you want to say it is not desirable
for performance, I think deriving from std::unary_function costs
nothing (since unary_function's only declare typedef's for return and
argument types, there is not impact on calling the functor). The
problem is that somehow I want the user to be explicit about those
types.
I am of course open to any propositions to avoid deriving from
std::unary_function that does not require a large template argument
list.
All the best,
Franck