From: Jesse Jones (jesjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-04 08:03:15
At 3:34 PM +0300 5/4/01, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Jesse Jones" <jesjones_at_[hidden]>
>> No dead weight. The code can call the binder/lambda library directly.
>Unnecessary coupling. This will make function.hpp fail regression tests
>wherever bind.hpp fails. If I need bind.hpp, I'll include it directly.
I was wondering when someone would make this argument. It's a good one. :-)
> > It's just a convenience that is IMO justified by how often people
>> will attach member functions to callbacks.
>I don't think it's even a convenience. bind() is more convenient than
>function<>() for binding member functions to instances because you don't
>have to supply a return type and an argument list.
I get the picture. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk