Re: [boost] [Fit]Â formal review starts today

Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] 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 
> some 
> > > constexpr cases. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Exactly my point. 
>
> I actually like this another lambda library, and I'm not sure why it's 
> half-baked. 
>
> 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 
> is 
> 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 
> in 
> 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: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost 
>