Re: [boost] Re: Callbacks Again

From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 19:39:15

>> >I think we're crossing wires here.  A closure is simple to
>implement,
>> >at least minimally.  However, libraries like Lambda do a better job
>> >than the "minimalist" approach, and if you've looked at their
>> >implementation you must agree that they are a "tremendous amount of
>> >effort" :).
>>
>> Certainly enough to scare me. :-) But the vast majority of
>callbacks need
>> nothing more than a minimalist approach, ie something that allows
>you to
>> bind one or more arguments of an arbitrary callback.
>
>And if those arguments are references you have to code around it.
>Etc, etc, etc.  Lambda is complex for a reason.  I don't think a
>minimalist approach is a good idea, because it duplicates effort
>while ignoring many small, but possibly critical, issues.  Again,
>given a compelling reason to include it I could be persuaded.  No
>one's really offered any, though.

Yeah, those evil references. :-) I'm starting to think you're right.
However I still think the callbacks should have a template ctor that takes
an object and a method. My guess is that this would be by far the most
common way to construct a callback so it would be good to make it simple
for clients. It would also allow us to swap in a different bind mechanism.

  -- Jesse