Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1_58_0_b1_rc2 is available for testing
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-17 18:44:12
AMDG
On 03/17/2015 04:38 PM, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
> [Steven Watanabe]
>> One of these has to fail:
>> int ref(int&);
>> int rref(int&&);
>> boost::function<void(int)> f1(&ref);
>> boost::function<void(int)> f2(&rref);
>> I don't think there's any strong reason
>> to support one over the other
>
> The Standard says that f1 is ill-formed for std::function (and this is properly rejected by my overhauled <functional> in VC 2015; I'd assume that libstdc++ and libc++ also reject).
>
So is it more important to match std::function
or to avoid breaking existing code?
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe