From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-27 14:52:21
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> I'm confused. Is this a bug in, or a feature of, functional.hpp?
We don't have bugs - only undocumented features. :-)
However this is actually a documented feature, and is one of the
two reasons boost::mem_fun exists. The other reason was to fix a
defect regarding constness of first_argument_type in the
const_mem_fun_t family - something I see you have also done.
Personally I think it would be silly to have yet another
std::mem_fun replacement with another name. I really hope I can
convince you to use call_traits so we can amalgamate the two.
Failing that, I'd much prefer to just see your mem_fun relegated
to an implementation detail of bind, since I don't honestly think
it has much value on its own. In fact I think it has a negative
impact so this would be my first choice if I didn't think I'd
already lost that battle.
Adding it as boost::mem_fn would be very much my third choice.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk