Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-01 12:38:49

Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Mathias Gaunard
> <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
>>> - Last time I checked Phoenix only had a monomoprhic bind. If you have
>>> polymorphic functions you have to convert them to lazy functions. I
>>> think that adding a polymorphic bind (like lambda shouldn't be hard).
>> I think that ideally, there should be a single bind function
>> (Boost.Bind, Boost.Lambda, Phoenix, etc.)
>> Why is there a need for bind to be library-specific? Overloading is
>> possible to handle special cases.
> Agree about boost.lambda and phoenix (in fact if they are both based
> on proto, it will probably work out of the box).
> Boost.bind, on the other hand, should probably remain similar to
> TR1/C++0x, i.e. no fancy operator overloads (other than relational).
> It is simpler to learn and more light weight.

That's OK with me as long as there aren't any surprising semantic
differences between bind and the bind subset of phoenix.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

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