Boost logo

Boost :

From: gregod_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-10-16 14:29:53

--- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> 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
> to call functions; however, I'm starting to change my mind on this
> usability really is more important here, and boost::mem_fn exists

I've added this into the version of Function in CVS, but it has only
been tested on GCC 2.95.2 and GCC 3.0.1. Feedback on other compilers
would, of course, be appreciated.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at