From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-20 10:51:53
I fully understand that. The Boost.Lambda Bind needs to return a lambda
functor, while the Boost.Bind returns a "binder" or "bind_t".
It would be nice if one could have a "super"-construct for these
functional entities, be them lambda functors or "bind_t" closures.
Anyhow, we here have some kind of competition. At least in the projects
where the pure lambda features are not required, I have a "bind" choice:
Boost.Bind or Boost.Lambda.bind...
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Benefit/Complexity ratio in
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> Functionally yes. But, at least in Boost 1.28, Boost.Lambda has its
> own "bind" variants. I have unfortunately not looked at post-1.28...
Yes, I see what you mean, but the implementations of Bind and Lambda are
radically different. They can't be merged.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk