Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit]Â formal review starts today
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 11:00:56
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:20:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Steven Watanabe wrote:
> > On 03/03/2016 07:16 PM, paul Fultz wrote:
> > >> placeholders.hpp:
> > >>
> > >> We really don't need another lambda library, let alone
> > >> a half-baked one.
> > >
> > > Its not designed to be a full lambda library. Just enough to handle
> > > constexpr cases.
> > >
> > Exactly my point.
> I actually like this another lambda library, and I'm not sure why it's
> The reason I like it is that when I proposed std::bind I deliberately put
> into it the hooks (is_placeholder, is_bind_expression) that allow a simple
> lambda library to be written to extend it, so that one can write f.ex.
> bind( f, _1 ) + bind( f, _2 ) * 2. And with C++11, writing this extension
> almost trivial. I've been trying to find the time to do so, and write an
> article about it, but no luck so far. Well, Paul wrote one.
> We've also been struggling with the theoretically sound way to define _1
> a header, and Paul provides a solution for that as well.
> (The one suggestion I have regarding this portion of the library is that
> Fit's placeholders should specialize boost::is_placeholder so that they
> could be used with boost::bind.)
That is good point, and I will add an issue for that.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk