From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-02 15:40:40
From: Gary Powell <Gary.Powell_at_[hidden]>
> While I don't have anything to say about functional's code, I do wish to
> note that it's functionality is completely encased in the lambda and
> expression libraries. Which leads to the question, are we going to
> multiple solutions to the same problem?
That's a fair question. The advantage of my functional.hpp is that it is
an immediate fix to something that is quite broken. People are already
learning about how to use the standard adapters, but finding they
invariably run into the references to references problem. I want them to
be able to retain their code and knowledge, but with a simple s/std/boost/
fix their problems.
However, I certainly agree that in the longer term my code will become
obsolete, as indeed will the compose.hpp that is already accepted. But
how far away are we from a complete, unified ET submission being accepted
into Boost, and gaining widespread acceptance in books, etc so that
people are no longer being taught to use bind1st/bind2nd?
Until that happens I think there is a place for functional.hpp. If that
place isn't Boost, then fair enough - I'll take it elsewhere.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk