Re: [Boost-users] Question on std::binary_function template arguments

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Question on std::binary_function template arguments
From: John M. Dlugosz (mpbecey7gu_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-14 00:32:02

On 9/13/2011 11:38 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> On 13 September 2011 11:13, Dave Abrahams<dave_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>
>> I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but IMO you should just
>> avoid std::binary_function and friends.  They don't buy you anything you
>> can't get from embedding the typedefs directly, and they can inhibit the
>> empty base optimization.
>
> And they are deprecated in C++11 (along with mem_fun and mem_fun_ref,
> for that matter).

Thanks.

So what is the "best practice" for creating something that plays well with older compilers 
that don't have decltype or all the C++11 features?

What kinds of things are first_argument_type and second_argument_type needed for?
I'm supposing that they would make bind smarter, work better perhaps, or give more 
sensible error messages.

If mem_fun etc. are deprecated in favor of just using function and bind, then is there 
also a general extension mechanism defined?  That is, tell subsequent uses of bind just 
what to do with first arguments of that nature?

—John