C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [isocpp-lib] std::function

From: Patrice Roy <patricer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 21:19:35 -0400
I understand that.

The SG14 requests we are discussing these days form a somehow coherent
whole, which I hope to turn into a somewhat coherent set of papers (not a
request for ponies, hopefully). It might take a couple of meetings for us
to decide the extent of this set of papers.

The aforementioned inplace_function<T,Sz> would be part of that, as would
be a number of non-allocating utilities since there seems to be needs we
don't cover and that a significant subset of our users would benefit from.
As mentioned previously, I think Jonathan's suggestion is a good idea
regardless of other concerns, and that it will be pursued as such.


Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 17:47, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> a écrit :

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 20:53, Barath Kannan <barathwaj.kannan_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Which is why I'm inclined to agree with Arthur that people should just
>> write their own erasure abstractions (and if possible, the standard should
>> try to offer tools to make this easier) rather than standardising things
>> like inplace_function and any_invocable.
> Agreed. std::function doesn't work well for everybody, but neither will
> whatever else we come up with. The standard library can't cover every use
> case.

Received on 2022-10-05 01:19:47