on Fri Dec 26 2008, Arno Schödl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:
The counting_iterator example above shows that people may want to, for special cases and not inside a library, but as an optimization for their special iterator implementation. It feels funny to me to use different techniques for different functions. And you pay the overhead of boost::bind for any call to lower_bound, customized or not. I am willing to do it, though, if that's what you prefer.
You don't have to use boost::bind. Just use the standard binders.
Are they preferable over boost/std::bind if the extra functionality of more general boost/std::bind is not needed?
If you don't want to pay the compilation overhead of boost::bind, then yes. ?? You're the one who brought that up.
I think one of my functors worked with boost::bind, but didn't with std::bind1st/2nd. Maybe some typedef was missing? I have to look.
Furthermore, if you publish the type of the function object used, people can still customize all of those individual variants if they're crazy enough to want to do that.
I don't understand what you mean.
The customizer simply writes a partition_point overload where the function object type is specific, e.g. something like binder2nd<std::less<T>, T> (I forget the real signatures)
O.k., I am happy we finally have agreement:-) I will send out the new version. Do you want to include it into Boost.Iterator (my preference), or as a separate library?
I'm sorry, but what component(s) are you proposing should be included into Boost.Iterator? Not the default partition_point, boost::lower_bound, et. al.? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com