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

"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? If Boost.Bind isn't going to be TR1 compliant, what will John Maddock's Boost.TR1 use? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com