RE: [boost] [Review] bind

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-17 16:19:41

Aside from the conflicts with functional -which I'm not sure how could be
solved-, I vote for inclusion.

I second the argument of replacing the _N notation for boost::argN.

What I am not sure to accept is the visitor mechanism, it looks rather
halfway to a more general callback coupling mechanism.
Though I admit that I couldn't quite imagine the usage of 'accept' beyond
the example given, I have the intuition that it provides a mecanishm that is
not as carefully thought as the rest of the library. It could end up being a
rather partial solution to a more general problem which might need to be
addressed more deeply: the coupling of function objects and callbacks.

BTW, which is the state of the preprocessor library?
The implementation of bind seems a perfect candidate for it. As a user, I
would require that the implementation of this particular library be readable
enough so that if I need support for more than 9 arguments I can just go on
and extend it. This task cold be very intuitive if the preprocessor is used.
Alternatively, the documentation could include an 'extending the library for
more arguments' section.

Fernando Cacciola
Sierra s.r.l.
fcacciola_at_[hidden]
www.gosierra.com