Re: [boost] functional.hpp and mem_fun.hpp (was [Review] bind)

From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-27 14:52:21

From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> 
> I'm confused. Is this a bug in, or a feature of, functional.hpp?

We don't have bugs - only undocumented features.  :-)  

However this is actually a documented feature, and is one of the 
two reasons boost::mem_fun exists.  The other reason was to fix a 
defect regarding constness of first_argument_type in the 
const_mem_fun_t family - something I see you have also done.

Personally I think it would be silly to have yet another 
std::mem_fun replacement with another name.  I really hope I can
convince you to use call_traits so we can amalgamate the two.

Failing that, I'd much prefer to just see your mem_fun relegated
to an implementation detail of bind, since I don't honestly think
it has much value on its own.  In fact I think it has a negative
impact so this would be my first choice if I didn't think I'd 
already lost that battle.

Adding it as boost::mem_fn would be very much my third choice.

Mark