On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
The patch is far from complete and only works for two argument binds, but you get the idea. I basically just adapted David's return type solution and made it a member type of boost::function. Thanks David!
Once you have that, why bother with function<>?
I suppose there's some stylistic appeal to having a single, common tool for storing functions. Less to learn and remember, maybe, easier maintenance: e.g. once you see "function<>" in someone else's code, you know what it's doing without having to look in a manuel, a single grep for "function" can retrieve all the stored function objects in a project, etc. Of course, another question is, once you have auto, why bother with function<>? But function<> could still be useful for a long time during the transition to the next standard and for maintaining legacy code. In that respect, extending function<> to handle more of the use cases of auto could also be helpful. Daniel Walker