Re: [boost] Boost bind "improvement"?

From: Herve Bronnimann (hervebronnimann_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-16 14:55:55

Dave:
 
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 02:39PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>Herve Bronnimann <hervebronnimann_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> My question is: Is there something I am missing that would create
>> problems in the usage of Boost.bind, if the second set of overloads
>> were added (besides the inconvenience of more overloads and a longer
>> source code to parse for the compiler)?
>> [...]
>Seems like it could work for the cases where rvalues don't get passed
>with non-const lvalues.

I'm not sure if you are saying that it would work in cases where it should have, but didn't, work before; or whether it would compile in cases where it shouldn't.

If you are you saying there are such cases where this would allow illegal bindings, then could you please provide a concrete example?  I'm somehow not getting it.
Thanks,
--
Herve Bronnimann