From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-18 06:17:04
>To fix the conflict between functional.hpp and mem_fun.hpp, I propose that
>the functional.hpp definition of mem_fun be surrounded by
>The two libraries will then coexist as long as mem_fun.hpp is included
Doesn't that introduce potential ODR violations?
In any case is your version a true replacement for the version in
<boost/functional.hpp> - for example does it fix the reference to reference
I'd like to see your version either removed or integrated with
<boost/functional.hpp>, sorry :-(
>is a useful generalization that will become more frequent when shared_ptr
>moves into std.
Making mem_fun work with a shared pointer is nice, but is it really a
killer feature? Users can just as easily pass "my_shared_ptr.get()" rather
than "my_shared_ptr" into this, and since these are generally used as
temporaries there is no lifetime management issue here iether IMO.
>To put it another way, if this were a review for mem_fun.hpp, without any
>mention of bind, how would you vote? Reject it because it's useless?
Personally, I would request that you submit patches for the existing
mem_fun, not submit a new and incompatible one.
- John Maddock
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk