From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-21 09:26:17
Markus Werle wrote:
> Peter Dimov <pdimov <at> pdimov.com> writes:
>> Michael Marcin:
>> [ ::_1 vs bll::_1 ]
>>> Is this accepted behavior?
>> It has been a source of complaints. Unfortunately a "proper fix" at this
>> time will break all boost::bind-using code, so I've been reluctant to move
>> the bind placeholders out of the way.
> We discussed this 5 years ago.
> AFAICR David Abrahams terminated the discussion tagging this as defect
> The trouble I had with ::_1 has a higher severity level than the breakage.
> I kindly ask you again to overcome your reluctance.
> Put a proper statement about the breaking change into the release notes
> and remove everything from global namespace.
> Also note that it is a good time to change this, since everybody
> ought to switch to std::tr1::bind anyway and boost::bind could be tagged
> as deprecated in favor of boost::tr1::bind.
Whoa!!! Does tr1::bind provide the relational operators that boost::bind
does? We use these extensively throughout our production code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk