Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit]Â formal review starts today
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 17:48:29
Le 05/03/2016 17:00, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
> 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:
>>>>> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk