Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 06:19:49

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2004 07:41 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> 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:
> Having Lambda's == and != operators return function objects
> convertible to bool would keep Lambda's semantics a superset of
> Bind's semantics.

I find your suggestion intriguing and appealing, in a certain "clever hack"
way, but you miss my point. I am not talking about keeping Lambda compatible
with what Bind does now. What I have in mind is an extended Bind that
supports !bind, bind ==, bind !=. That Bind is what I want to be compatible
with Lambda. At the moment, your idea seems too costly to implement in Bind,
and I see no corresponding benefits, but I'll keep it in mind as a potential

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