From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-16 14:38:00
Herve Bronnimann <hervebronnimann_at_[hidden]> writes:
> You still will not be able to
> forward a mix of non-const lvalues and rvalues, but it may not happen
> very frequently (most return arguments I use in my code are passed by
> address, in C style, and an address can be matched to a "T* const&").
> Also, the cost is not high (what's an extra 9 overloads, when you
> already have 9 :-)
> My question is: Is there something I am missing that would create
> problems in the usage of Boost.bind, if the second set of overloads
> were added (besides the inconvenience of more overloads and a longer
> source code to parse for the compiler)?
> BTW, I am not necessarily advocating that Boost.bind provide the
> const& overloads, although I think it would be nice if there are no
> problems associated with it.
Seems like it could work for the cases where rvalues don't get passed
with non-const lvalues.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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