Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | 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.
so bind(&Foo::name, _1, name)
would be preferable then, this will afterall be supported by TR1.
For more complex stuff... nested binds etc., the story might be
different.
--
Lgb
