Re: [Boost-users] Problem with boost::bind and boost::lambda::bind

10 Aug 2007

      Roman Perepelitsa  writes:
...
Stefano Peluchetti  writes:
...
I'm actually moving everything to
boost::lambda::bind to
1) avoid the conflict of boost::lambda::_1 and _1
2) have binders that are "lambda ready" if needed
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Note that sometimes boost::bind is a better choice
that boost::lambda::bind.
1. boost::bind has better support for smart pointers.
struct A
{
    void f() {}
};
shared_ptr<A> a;
bind(&A::f, _1)(a); // works for boost::bind only
2. boost::bind sometimes can choose correct instance of
overloaded function. (probably you got hit by this distinction).
struct A
{
    void f() const {}
    void f() {}
};
A a;
bind(&A::f, a); // works for boost::bind only
3. boost::bind can accept non-const rvalue if there
are not many arguments. I believe last (unreleased)
version of boost::lambda::bind can do this as well.
void f(int) {}
bind(f, _1)(42); // works for boost::bind only
My personal experience also shows that boost::bind
based code compiles faster.
Roman Perepelitsa.
Very interesting information, thank you.
Is there any documentation about these details ? 
I couldn't find anything like that in the boost lambda library documentation.

I noticed that boost::bind code usually compiles faster too. But I'm working an
a numerical simulation library and I have to compose functions together a lot of
times. That's where lambda is very handy.

Also I can't still understand *why* only the boost::bind binder works in the
three examples you gave. What is the technical reason behind these results? Is
it really necessary to study the whole boost::lambda library from source code to
figure it out?

Best Regards