Re: [boost] [bind][phoenix] unified placeholders, yea or nay?

Subject: Re: [boost] [bind][phoenix] unified placeholders, yea or nay?
From: paul Fultz (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-28 02:46:26

----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]>
> To: Boost mailing list <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:22 PM
> Subject: [boost] [bind][phoenix] unified placeholders, yea or nay?
> 
> I'm considering taking on as a side project the unification of the bind
> and phoenix placeholders, a perennial source of confusion and annoyance.
> I hesitate before beginning because it necessarily introduces some
> complexity into boost.bind, a very small, simple, and light-weight
> library. In particular, the unification would:
> 
> 1) Cause boost.bind to depend on boost.proto. (I would do what I could
> to keep that dependency as slight as possible.)
> 2) Could not be supported on all platforms; e.g. not on borland or (gcc
> < 4) where the placeholders are actually static inline functions(!).
> (Peter, is this an ODR thing?)
> 3) Would introduce Phoenix behaviors into Bind, insofar as _1 is a
> lambda such that _1(42) evaluates to 42.
> 
> At this point, it's not obvious to me that the benefits outweigh the
> costs. Opinions? Peter, I'd especially like to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps, they could use the same placeholders in the C++11 standard library, as well.
> 
> -- 
> Eric Niebler
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>