[boost] Re: First lambda

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 18:14:32

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> It sure would've been nice to be able to write _2.count, or count(_2), or
> _2.count(), but we can't, so we bind(). ;-) The regular syntax has its
> advantages, and the initial "member pointer first" surprise is a one-time
> adjustment.

It's an issue of how far the language is, mentally, from the domain
abstraction it represents.  

   _2.member(&X::count)

maps more directly to

   _2.count

than

   bind(&X::count,_2)

does.  For me.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com