Re: [boost] boost::function<void, X*> m = &X::f;

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.

        Doug