Re: [boost] [range/iterators/algorithms/phoenix/bind...] Coordinated Approach

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
http://www.boostpro.com