Re: [boost] Re: Callbacks Again

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 20:02:03

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:39:15 -0800
Jesse Jones <jejones_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> >
> >And if those arguments are references you have to code around it.
> >Etc, etc, etc.  Lambda is complex for a reason.  I don't think a
> >minimalist approach is a good idea, because it duplicates effort
> >while ignoring many small, but possibly critical, issues.  Again,
> >given a compelling reason to include it I could be persuaded.  No
> >one's really offered any, though.
> 
> Yeah, those evil references. :-) I'm starting to think you're right.
> However I still think the callbacks should have a template ctor that takes
> an object and a method. My guess is that this would be by far the most
> common way to construct a callback so it would be good to make it simple
> for clients. It would also allow us to swap in a different bind mechanism.

I think if the callbacks are to be purified to only deal with functors, that 
a construct taking an object and a method would be a mistake. Instead, I 
think a make_callback function would be best.

        Doug Gregor