RE: [boost] Benefit/Complexity ratio in libraries[wasMPLcontainersand algorithms]

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...

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:29 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Benefit/Complexity ratio in
libraries[wasMPLcontainersand algorithms]

From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> Peter,
>
> 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:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost