Compare commits

..

1 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
nobody
08b135e6ef This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create tag
'Version_1_24_0'.

[SVN r10904]
2001-08-20 14:01:13 +00:00
2 changed files with 3 additions and 5 deletions

View File

@@ -447,9 +447,7 @@ namespace boost {
#endif // BOOST_FUNCTION_USE_VIRTUAL_FUNCTIONS
public:
BOOST_FUNCTION_FUNCTION() : function_base(), Mixin() BOOST_FUNCTION_INIT {}
explicit BOOST_FUNCTION_FUNCTION(const Mixin& m) :
explicit BOOST_FUNCTION_FUNCTION(const Mixin& m = Mixin()) :
function_base(), Mixin(m) BOOST_FUNCTION_INIT
{
}

View File

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ And, of course, function pointers have several advantages over Boost.Function:
<p> With a properly inlining compiler, an invocation of a function object requires one call through a function pointer. If the call is to a free function pointer, an additional call must be made to that function pointer (unless the compiler has very powerful interprocedural analysis).
<h2><a name="portability">Portability</a></h2>
<p> The function object wrappers have been designed to be as portable as possible, and to support many compilers even when they do not support the C++ standard well. The following compilers have passed all of the test cases included with <code>boost::function</code>.
<p> The function object wrappers have been designed to be as portable as possible, and to support many compilers even when they do not support the C++ standard well. The following compilers have passed all of the testcases included with <code>boost::function</code>.
<ul>
<li>GCC 2.95.3</li>
<li>GCC 3.0</li>
@@ -88,4 +88,4 @@ And, of course, function pointers have several advantages over Boost.Function:
<hr>
<address><a href="mailto:gregod@cs.rpi.edu">Doug Gregor</a></address>
</body>
</html>
</html>