Carl Nygard wrote:

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 14:09, Doug Gregor wrote:

...

I'm not in a position to do this at the moment, although possibly in the future. It would be *wonderful* if someone went off and studied both libraries in-depth to make this comparison, especially if that person was not intimately familiar with either library beforehand.

Available: http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html

Updates for code samples from Chris Vine and Jonathan Brandmeyer will be forthcoming.

I could use some suggestions on how to incorporate common code into the code comparison tables.

And of course, any other comments, flames, etc. will be welcome. I'm only doing this as a service for keeping track of comments. I'd like to see some of this stuff make it into the C++ standard library.

About: [-ed I'd love this, as long as I didn't have to use all of Boost to get it]. in reference to Boost.Bind. You don't need all of Boost. boost::bind is reasonably self-contained. I see that a dependency on mpl::bool_ has crept up in boost/ref.hpp, but Bind does not need it, so it's excisable without much effort. "Soon" (in a few years, once TR1 is implemented across the board) we'll hopefully be able to get 'bind' and 'function' by just including <functional>. This will also help Boost.Signals a bit since I suspect that nowadays most of the preprocessed code comes from boost::function.