Re: Re: Re: Re: Using boost::function with VC6

"Peter Dimov" wrote in message news:000501c22f1d$a6fb7690$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...

...

I am using boost::function to implement closures for a Visual C++ 3rd

From: "Edward Diener" [...] party

...

library and suggesting boost::bind as the main way to bind member functions to my boost::function implementations. I have even provided some macros which make binding an end user member function to the particular boost::function closures of my classes, using boost::bind, easier. For C++ Builder, as you may know, Borland has a __closure addition to the C++ language, totally non-standard C++, which makes the usage of boost::function and boost::bind unnecessary.

Borland __closures are, in some ways, more convenient, but function+bind is a more powerful mechanism. __closures need an exact signature match:

Yes, I am aware of the differences. When I said unnecessary I didn't mean in any way to denigrate boost::function and boost::bind. There is definitely extra functionality in the boost::bind mechanism over C++ Builder __closures if the programmer needs it. And of course the boost mechanisms are C++ and should work on any conforming compiler while C++ Builder's __closure is not pure C++ and only works in C++ Builder. Still, having worked with C++ Builder extensively I have found the C++ Builder __closure to be a wonderfully simple concept which corresponds to something which I have always thought should be part of the C++ language, which is "pointer to member function of any class". But it does no good to argue this idea since both Boost, with boost::function+boost::bind, and Loki, with Loki::Functor, have shown that this concept can be implemented with template mechanisms, and the rejoinder that it can be done via templates will always, I believe, mitigate it being accepted as an addition to the C++ language.