Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Monday 27 January 2003 10:07 am, Markus Werle wrote:
They are used _in_ _parallel_, not together. IMHO it is a good idea to have them both in name namespaces.
Any good reason to leave them in :: scope?
Because writing boost::_1 is a lot of extra typing,
Well, assumed I have good reasons to use boost::bind and ::_1 in one case and boost::lambda::_1 in another place in the same file. Now there is a _lot_ of extra typing due to the ambiguity: using boost::lambda::_1; using boost::lamdba::bind; etc. If _1 from boost::function would reside in a named namespace (as does good and IMHO correctly implemnetd boost::lambda library) the name resolution side effects would vanish immediately
and "using namespace boost" is not an option for all users (it brings in a lot of names that might conflict with user code).
I agree. So what about another nested one: boost::function::placeholders
I keep hoping that Boost.Bind's _1 and Boost.Lambda's _1 will become the same entity at some point...
In 2012? Markus