Re: [boost] about function.hpp

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. :-)

   -- Jesse