From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 16:18:58
Peter Dimov <pdimov <at> mmltd.net> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Is it really true that I can write
> > bind(f, _1) > _2
> > but can't write
> > _1 > _2
> > ??
> A limitation of the current implementation. On some compilers, the
> placeholders are function pointers and _1 > _2 can't be overloaded. There's
> no other technical reason that prevents _1 > _2 (or _1 > 0) from working;
> it'd fall out of the specification.
Peter, is there still a good reason for this implementation detail? If people
*_1 < *_2
it would make a killer demo. I would personally scramble to implement this in
time for 1.34 if you tell me there's a possibility.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk