From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-10 08:44:05
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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
> Really? I didn't figure out what the code illustrates, ...
The code illustrates that Bind can be easily enhanced to have limited lambda
> ... 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.
You are just repeating my statement. There should be no differences.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk