From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-16 09:07:19
On Saturday 13 October 2001 08:24, you wrote:
> Would it be a good idea to add direct member function support to
> boost::function? The semantics would be 'as if' the user had wrapped the
> member function in boost::mem_fn.
I was against this because normalizing member function support is orthogonal
to call functions; however, I'm starting to change my mind on this because
usability really is more important here, and boost::mem_fn exists now. I'm
still against taking the next step to allow any binding to occur in function.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk