On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:43:17 -0500, Douglas Gregor <gregod@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
On Tuesday 18 March 2003 10:50 pm, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Also, the bind documentation itself (again, as far as I can see) does not say anything about how to handle assignments. Therefore, would it not be a good idea to include an example in the bind documentation showing how assignments should be handled? In any case, more and varied examples are always a good thing.
There is an example of using the two libraries together here: http://www.boost.org/libs/bind/bind.html#with_boost_function but perhaps we need something that says "if you want to store a bind object, use Function" instead of "if you want to use Function with bind, you can do this (storing a bind object)".
Right. I saw the example you mentioned, but the significance (and utility) completely passed me by, partly, perhaps, because it was inside a class, and also because it was not stated explicitly that this was how you stored boost objects. It would also be good to use an example with several arguments. As someone who has done a lot of teaching, I know it is best to keep examples as simple as possible, while still having the features necessary to serve its purpose. A lot of free software libraries have the problem that they give examples that are way too complicated, and include lots of irrelevant stuff, which just causes confusion. Your documentation is pretty good, actually. I think it would be good if it was stated explicitly that 1) The return type of Bind objects is undefined (or whatever). 2) If you want to store a bind object, use boost::function, with a pointer to the appropriate section. An example with several arguments would be nice. Of course, finding the documentation once they have been told (1) and (2) is the easy part. I can attest personally that expecting people to read between the lines (if they are not experts) will not work well in this case. My apologies if it sounds like I am lecturing you. I am very grateful for your helpful feedback. Faheem.