From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 10:08:01
Daniel Frey wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > You've considered
> > bind(f, bind(g, _1, _2), bind(h, _1, _2))
> > right? ;-)
> Sure. But still compose.hpp is in itself incomplete. And it completes
> the standard's parts on function objects so I think it might be
> desirable to supply compose_f_gxy_hxy.
The standard is moving towards 'bind' -
> If we take bind into account here, we could just as well remove
> compose.hpp completly, couldn't we?
We might, in a couple of years. Seriously, 'bind' is superior here; it
takes some learning to switch over from the 'compose_*' family, but it's
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk