Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What to do about std::binary_function and std::unary_function?
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-06 15:01:16

On 6 May 2016 at 03:32, Rainer Deyke <rainerd_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 05.05.2016 21:18, Nick Matteo wrote:
>> 3) A modification of approach 2: instead of manually adding the
>> typedefs everywhere, make a base class to provide the typedefs
>> somewhere in Boost. Then replace inheritance from
>> std::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result> with inheritance from
>> boost::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result>.
> 3a) Provide boost::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result>, which inherits
> std::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result> if it is available, and
> reimplements std::binary_function otherwise.

I disagree. The standard is getting rid of them for good reason. Boost
should too.

 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>>

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at