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.