AMDG Daniel Walker wrote:
Here's another idea that we might be able to pursue in the future. The original complaint is not that there isn't a general way to return a bind object; you can use boost::function. The complaint is that boost::function isn't optimal, since it precludes inlining. So, another approach would be to provide an optimized specialization of boost::function for bind objects; i.e. boost::function could leverage implementation specific details of boost::bind to store bind objects optimally. It makes sense that Boost libraries would be optimized when used with other Boost libraries, and presumably, stdlib venders will look for similar opportunities for internal optimization in order to differentiate themselves. I'm not sure if this is possible, but it might be something worth looking into.
This isn't possible without knowing the static type of the bind object. Boost.Function can't possibly avoid type erasure, so I don't think this leads anywhere. In Christ, Steven Watanabe