Re: [Boost-users] Problem with boost::bind and boost::lambda::bind

From: Roman Perepelitsa (roman.perepelitsa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-10 03:44:41

Stefano Peluchetti <pelux <at> ngi.it> writes:
> I'm actually moving everything to
> boost::lambda::bind to
> 1) avoid the conflict of boost::lambda::_1 and _1
> 2) have binders that are "lambda ready" if needed
> 
> Thank you in advance for your reply.

Note that sometimes boost::bind is a better choice
that boost::lambda::bind.

1. boost::bind has better support for smart pointers.

struct A
{
    void f() {}
};

shared_ptr<A> a;
bind(&A::f, _1)(a); // works for boost::bind only

2. boost::bind sometimes can choose correct instance of
overloaded function. (probably you got hit by this distinction).

struct A
{
    void f() const {}
    void f() {}
};

A a;
bind(&A::f, a); // works for boost::bind only

3. boost::bind can accept non-const rvalue if there
are not many arguments. I believe last (unreleased)
version of boost::lambda::bind can do this as well.

void f(int) {}

bind(f, _1)(42); // works for boost::bind only

My personal experience also shows that boost::bind
based code compiles faster.

Roman Perepelitsa.