|
|
fea85acd0e
|
equality comparisons on function erasure objects covered
...well, as good as possible, as boost refuses to implement this feature
|
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00 |
|
|
|
231278bafe
|
implemented comparison on function erasure, pending test
|
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00 |
|
|
|
5068016805
|
WIP draft how the equality comparison on a function erasure could work
|
2009-10-11 05:57:43 +02:00 |
|
|
|
c85d1d3cd8
|
ArgumentHolder finished, low-level integration test pass
|
2009-07-20 07:03:18 +02:00 |
|
|
|
2462dee5ca
|
issue resolved, tests pass, finally (whew)
|
2009-07-06 02:25:19 +02:00 |
|
|
|
c3b8d39507
|
refactoring into two distinct concepts. maybe solution?
|
2009-07-05 22:05:11 +02:00 |
|
|
|
e2bb2c440c
|
use OpaqueHolder to solve the problem with the function type erasure...
...tried to use 2 policies, but doesn't work correct (and is uggly)
|
2009-07-05 03:38:33 +02:00 |
|
|
|
b65658c10d
|
try to fix a failing test (not really fixed yet)
|
2009-07-04 00:22:16 +02:00 |
|
|
|
8ea07bda7a
|
use the new bool conversion mixin to implement check for valid functor
|
2009-06-26 19:04:22 +02:00 |
|
|
|
5291f6e41a
|
move the member pointer to the current stack frame...
hopefully the optimiser will remove it completely ;-)
|
2009-06-26 17:13:36 +02:00 |
|
|
|
a30461780b
|
this way it works, but would cost additional storage....
|
2009-06-26 16:38:37 +02:00 |
|
|
|
daeff6f5fd
|
WIP: how to define the bool conversion / validity check for the function holders?
|
2009-06-26 05:27:54 +02:00 |
|
|
|
a28c05877f
|
test pass (resolves Ticket #174)
|
2009-06-20 06:11:09 +02:00 |
|
|
|
079030818d
|
draft a test to sharpen the idea of the function holder (erasure)
|
2009-06-20 04:43:52 +02:00 |
|
|
|
a565bfef73
|
some header-renaming
|
2009-06-20 01:28:47 +02:00 |
|
