Daniel Frey wrote: > Peter Dimov wrote: > > You've considered > > > > bind(f, bind(g, _1, _2), bind(h, _1, _2)) > > > > right? ;-) > > Sure. But still compose.hpp is in itself incomplete. And it completes > the standard's parts on function objects so I think it might be > desirable to supply compose_f_gxy_hxy.
The standard is moving towards 'bind' - http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1455.htm. > If we take bind into account here, we could just as well remove > compose.hpp completly, couldn't we? We might, in a couple of years. Seriously, 'bind' is superior here; it takes some learning to switch over from the 'compose_*' family, but it's worth it. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
