From: kostya (kostya_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-15 10:03:44
I've been playing with the lambda library for quite some time
and I must say that I love it. It saves a lot of time and often
makes the code shorter and more readable. It works well together
with STL algorithms and with other boost libraries.
In an ideal world, this is what should've been accepted into
boost instead of boost::bind many months ago. The main reason
why something like boost::bind was necessary is lack of
compliant compilers that can support BLL. I think that BLL is
what should be included into standard; it is not practical to include
two libraries when the complete functinality of one is basically
just a subset of the other.
Actually, this is the only real problem with BLL: few compilers
are compliant enough to compile it, and there is no even theoretical
way to make it work with such [sorry excuses for] compilers
as MSVC++. However, this should not be a factor for [not] including
a useful library into boost nor into the standard. Actually, including
BLL in boost may help us get more compliant compilers faster, as
compiler developers now start using boost to test their products.
Other problems, including those mentioned earlier in this list and
in BLL documentation (which is BTW very good and educating
to read, even if you do not plan to use BLL) are very minor and
are not actually a problems.
Therefore, I vote for including BLL into boost as it is, without
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk