Re: [boost] about function.hpp

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-04 07:19:11

From: "Jesse Jones" <jesjones_at_[hidden]>

> At 5:21 PM +0300 5/3/01, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >From: "Jesse Jones" <jesjones_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >>  2) The API is a bit more awkward than I would like. For example, I
> >>  have lots of code that looks sort of like this:
> >>
> >>      // About
> >  >     function<void> action(this, &CApp::DoAbout);
> >>      handler->RegisterCommand(kAboutCmd, action, kDisabledIfDialog);
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Doesn't bind.hpp that I recently posted solve these problems?
>
> Sure, but most people will use member function pointers very heavily.
> It doesn't seem reasonable to require them to drag in binders for
> such a common operation...

button.onClick = function<void>(this, &CApp::DoAbout);

vs

button.onClick = bind(this, &CApp::DoAbout);

Likewise,

handler->RegisterCommand(kAboutCmd, function<void>(this, &CApp::DoAbout));

vs.

handler->RegisterCommand(kAboutCmd, bind(this, &CApp::DoAbout));

In either case, you have to "drag in" binders. Whether you spell the binder
name "bind" or "function<void>" doesn't affect the code - except that if you
require 'function' to have bind functionality it will have to either drag in
bind.hpp, even if you don't bind anything, or duplicate the bind code.

[Don't CC me, please. :-)]

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.