From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-04-02 18:48:49
pt., 2 kwi 2021 o 18:28 Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> > Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> > > Maybe Boost.Lambda2 could also provide its own thin wrapper for
> > > std::bind which returns a type from namespace boost::lambda2
> > I think (and hope) that this won't be necessary.
> > By the way, one advantage of Lambda2 defining its own placeholders would
> > be that they will now be usable as function objects. The need for just
> _1 or
> > _2 as a lambda is surprisingly common and it's an annoyance that they
> > work.
> Another advantage would be the ability to supply operator, which must be
> a member. This will allow things like _1[x] or _1 < _1 to work.
> needed _1[x] for his zip_view implementation.)
Sure. This will however set the expect\tion bar even higher, and now one
can ask if you could provide the function call operator in the same way.
But I guess this is impossible.
> So, Andrzej, provided we have an agreement on the need for Lambda2 to
> provide its own placeholders instead of importing the standard ones, does
> this change your opinion on whether the library needs to be rejected?
Yes, it does. I change my recommendation to conditionally accept
Boost.Lambda2; the condition being to provide its own placeholders.
> 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