From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-17 18:21:05
>> It's an interesting approach, but I'm a bit concerned about layering
>> something as fundamentally simple as callback objects onto the complex and
>> rather scary lambda library...
>Well the advantage is that its then possible to do a callback with partial
> callback<returnType, ArgType>;
> returnType fn( ArgType, value1Type, value2Type);
> bind(fn, free1, value1, value2);
> where the "free1" is the placeholder for the callback's one argument, and
>the other two values are bound to the function call. Using bind() this way
>greatly expands the allowed set of callback functions.
I do this sort of thing right now without a full blown lambda library. OTOH
it would be kind of silly to have two different ways to bind arguments.
>That's not scary is it? Besides, only simple fns make simple callbacks.
I'm very impressed with libraries like Blitz++ and the lambda library, but
I can't help wondering if they're placing too many demands on compilers and
client programmers. I'm planning on looking more closely at the lambda
library over the next week or so. Perhaps I'll change my tune. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk