Re: [boost] Re: Callbacks Again

From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 20:33:50

>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.

Why is a make_callback function better than a template ctor?

  -- Jesse