Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-10 08:30:05

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

>> I'd think that this is the right expectation for Lambda, but not for
>> FC++ or Bind. Not that I'm helping any :)
> No, I don't think so. Expressions that are valid for both Bind and Lambda
> should have the same semantics. And in fact, this is not just
> theory:

Really? I didn't figure out what the code illustrates, but my recent
attempts to use Lambda have been a dismal failure, mostly because of
subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences with Bind. For
example, Lambda doesn't seem to support get_pointer to dereference
through smart pointers. The tuple/reference issue I posted about
yesterday was another obstacle.

I'm rather discouraged with how difficult it is to use standard
algorithms -- or even algorithms over sequences as opposed to
iterators -- to write something that could be coded quickly using dumb
loops. I hold out some hope that the long-promised integration of
Lambda and Phoenix will help to solve these problems, but it's hard
to tell when (or if) that's actually coming.

Glum in Somerville,

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at