On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:54:36PM +0200, Peter Dimov wrote:
The bind() model of separate adaptation and invocation can handle the question of object lifetime better (const reference vs non-const reference is actually a distraction). Consider these two examples:
[ examples elided]
In both cases, everything is pure const, no side effects, but the by-value vs by-reference difference is crucial.
While the unified syntax of fc++ is quite appealing, there is no bind/call separation. Of course you could enable_if it to behave differently when one of the arguments is _ but I'm not sure whether this would be a good idea.
Wow, thanks much for this example! I found it very enlightening. In conjunction with recent ideas posted by Fernando, I think I may see a nice way to handle reference-issues in FC++ using boost::ref. I need to think about it a little more, though. Will post more later. -- -Brian McNamara (lorgon@cc.gatech.edu)