Re: [boost] phoenix::bind

Subject: Re: [boost] phoenix::bind
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-02 18:37:09

Steven Watanabe wrote:
> AMDG
> 
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> Yep, I'm keeping the behavior of protect, not unlambda. As
>> I mentioned in my other post. val(_1 < _2) can probably be
>> the unlambda behavior.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to overload val like this, giving it
> two different unrelated meanings.

I think you're probably right. For example, I use:

     val(_1)

to convert the referene into a val. So, agreed. It does not make
sense to overload the meaning of val.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net