3 Mar
2004
3 Mar
'04
11:35 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
It sure would've been nice to be able to write _2.count, or count(_2), or _2.count(), but we can't, so we bind(). ;-) The regular syntax has its advantages, and the initial "member pointer first" surprise is a one-time adjustment.
It's an issue of how far the language is, mentally, from the domain abstraction it represents.
_2.member(&X::count)
maps more directly to
_2.count
than
bind(&X::count,_2)
does. For me.
Yep, but you are optimizing the rare "public member" case. Are you going to introduce new syntax for count(_2) and _2.count() as well? bind(count, _2) bind(&X::count, _2) That's the regularity I spoke of.