From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-17 11:52:07
"Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I second this feature, I need function chaining everyday, and I've
> brought up the issue some days ago (you replied suggesting the use
> library, but I'd still like to have a solution that doesn't use
> several reasons). Also, the syntactic sugar I've proposed
> looks good to me.
Indeed, the most important reason for which I added chaining was its
everyday usefulness. As I also wrote in the book, I decided to stop
there before adding much more features like Chain, because they drift
away from Functor's charter.
On the other point about Loki::Functor's constructor taking an object
and a pointer to member function: the bind() function does the same,
so it's all right as it is. I do like the constructor for the sake of
purity: everything that can be called like a function ought to be
accomodated as a constructor of Loki::Functor.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk