Peter Dimov wrote:
Sohail Somani:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Well... and how does this achieve the goal of having "unified" placeholders in namespace boost::placeholders?
Your question was what to do with the immediate problem of bind's global placeholders... That was what I was responding to.
OK, let's try again. Why is moving Bind's placeholders to namespace boost::bindns::placeholders instead of namespace boost::placeholders better, in your opinion?
Since you asked, in my opinion, it is better because it doesn't give the wrong impression that these are *the* boost placeholders and all those other libraries deliberately don't use them to make my life miserable :-) Though, thinking about it a bit further, if you were to annex the boost::placeholders namespace for bind's placeholders, maybe the other library authors would support what is in that namespace with their libraries. <hand_waving>How hard can it be?</hand_waving> I guess only they know. I am just asking for some assurance that boost::placeholders would not just be placeholders that work with one library forever. I think that is unfair to the user. There are some really great Boost libraries that help you make your code more concise and it isn't a coincidence that placeholders have a big part to play in these libraries. Patches welcome, I suppose. -- Sohail Somani http://uint32t.blogspot.com