Subject: Re: [boost] phoenix::bind
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-02 16:47:53
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Yep, I'm keeping the behavior of protect, not unlambda. As
> I mentioned in my other post. val(_1 < _2) can probably be
> the unlambda behavior.
I don't think it's a good idea to overload val like this, giving it
two different unrelated meanings.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk