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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-31 10:07:58

At 10:50 AM 8/28/2001, Darin Adler wrote:

 >On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 04:06  AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
 >
 >> This is a more interesting statement. What is the negative impact of
 >> mem_fn?
 >>
 >>> Adding it as boost::mem_fn would be very much my third choice.
 >>
 >> This is rapidly becoming my first choice. Trying to call it mem_fun was 
a
 >> mistake (from a political if not technical point of view.)
 >
 >I personally think it's bad design to have three similar, but subtly
 >different, function templates named std::mem_fun, boost::mem_fun, and
 >boost::mem_fn. Why make programming even more subtle than it has to be by 

 >using names that look almost the same?

I second that.

--Beman