Herve Bronnimann <hervebronnimann@mac.com> writes:
You still will not be able to forward a mix of non-const lvalues and rvalues, but it may not happen very frequently (most return arguments I use in my code are passed by address, in C style, and an address can be matched to a "T* const&"). Also, the cost is not high (what's an extra 9 overloads, when you already have 9 :-)
My question is: Is there something I am missing that would create problems in the usage of Boost.bind, if the second set of overloads were added (besides the inconvenience of more overloads and a longer source code to parse for the compiler)?
BTW, I am not necessarily advocating that Boost.bind provide the const& overloads, although I think it would be nice if there are no problems associated with it.
Seems like it could work for the cases where rvalues don't get passed with non-const lvalues. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com