Re: [boost] about function.hpp

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-04 07:34:59

From: "Jesse Jones" <jesjones_at_[hidden]>

> No dead weight. The code can call the binder/lambda library directly.

Unnecessary coupling. This will make function.hpp fail regression tests
wherever bind.hpp fails. If I need bind.hpp, I'll include it directly.

> It's just a convenience that is IMO justified by how often people
> will attach member functions to callbacks.

I don't think it's even a convenience. bind() is more convenient than
function<>() for binding member functions to instances because you don't
have to supply a return type and an argument list.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.