Re: [Boost-users] bind's bind vs lambda's bind

David Abrahams wrote:

"Peter Dimov" writes:

...

David Abrahams wrote:

...

"Peter Dimov" writes:

...

If you are aiming at a real TR1 bind, you'll have to add (much) more coverage anyway; boost::bind is too simple.

Really! Are you planning to remedy that?

I think that the current implementation of boost::bind does have its advantages. :-)

I'm sorry, that's a little too cryptic for me.

What advantages?

A mostly green text matrix on a wide variety of compilers.

If Boost.Bind isn't going to be TR1 compliant, what will John Maddock's Boost.TR1 use?

Boost.Bind doesn't support return type deduction via result_of and custom bind expressions and placeholders via is_bind_expression and is_placeholder. It implements the "portable subset" of tr1::bind. A boost::bind expression should be a valid tr1::bind expression, so it's forward compatible.