On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
David Sankel wrote:
Thanks for clarifying what I meant by awkward. Is it possible, and if so how, to make a generic solution? The main problem I see is bind taking a type argument in some cases. Could boost.bind be modified to expose a result type? I haven't seen any reasons yet for bind not including this really useful feature.
I believe that there's an open feature request for Boost.Typeof emulation support for Boost.Bind. If you're willing to live with your code only working on gcc, msvc, and any other compilers that have a built-in typeof or decltype, then you can use Boost.Typeof in native mode now.
That's a good idea. That would help bridge the C++03/0x gap. 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. Daniel Walker