On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:44:47PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> struct SameName : public std::unary_function<Foo, bool> {
> SameName(std::string const & name) : name_(name) {}
> bool operator()(Foo const & foo) const { return foo.name() == name_; }
> std::string name_;
> };
>
> and as lambda:
>
> bind(&Foo::name, _1) == name
>
> | I don't think this is convincing evidence.
I am not sure the public std::unary_function<Foo, bool> is needed.
It might be political correct, though.
And you missed approaches #2 and #3 which were proposed earlier.
Does that mean these are not on the table anymore?
> | IMO there is a draw between 'old fashioned code' and lambda and the tie
> | breaker 'simple standard constructs' prefers 'old fashioned code'.
>
> can you add some commas to make me understand the sentence?
IMO there is a draw between 'old fashioned code' and lambda. If one
needs to decide for one or the other, other criteria are needed.
'simple standard constructs' would be one of them.
Andre'
