Re: [boost] Re: making bind and mem_fn results default constructible?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-17 07:14:44

Fredrik Blomqvist wrote:
>
> Ah, well, my intention wasn't really to focus on transform_iterator,
> I just used it as an example.

Yes, I know. Me too.

> Although I can see that you're right
> about it not being in sync with it's documentation.
> My point was that default-constructability would make creating _any_
> kind of adaptor based on bind/mem_fn easier and more flexible.

I'm not sure I agree. Adding a default constructor that may create a 
singular object is, in my experience, a design mistake. Any component that 
requires such a constructor is broken. The main purpose of this constructor 
(again, IME) is to allow you to shoot yourself in the foot, as is frequently 
the case with the iterators.