Herve Bronnimann <hervebronnimann@mac.com> writes:
Dave:
On Monday, October 16, 2006, at 02:39PM, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Herve Bronnimann <hervebronnimann@mac.com> writes:
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)? [...] Seems like it could work for the cases where rvalues don't get passed with non-const lvalues.
I'm not sure if you are saying that it would work in cases where it should have, but didn't, work before; or whether it would compile in cases where it shouldn't.
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't work; I'm just saying it seems as though your scheme could work for some cases (the ones you outlined).
If you are you saying there are such cases where this would allow illegal bindings, then could you please provide a concrete example?
I'm not saying that. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com